Chuck,
Thank you for the link. I watched it and I encourage everyone to watch it,
it is just over an hour. This sums up everything about why I started to
question the current status quo about global warming. I had heard about the
documentary, but didn't know that it was on the internet to watch.
There will be some that might dismiss this film outright. But if one watches
it, sees at who participated in it, one will see that there are many
respected scientists who gave very convincing reasons to question the notion
that mans CO2 contribution is causing global warming. One cannot deny
everything that was presented in this film as nonsense. You just can't.
You owe it to yourself to watch the video, and see that there is another
side to the whole deal. It may just cause you to think about things for
yourself for a change, instead of being told how to think...
We all know of what happens when government gets involved with environmental
issues. The current Lead-free debacle is just an example. This was supposed
to be good for the environment, right?
Thank you Chuck!
-Steve Gregory-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Dolci" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [EN] FW: FW: ek[EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
> All:
> I am surprised that no one has mentioned (did I miss something???) the
> recent documentary broadcast on BBC last week, called "The Great Global
> Warming Swindle" . If you didn't have access to BBC TV you can watch the
> documentary on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
>
> I watched it and thought it was pretty impressive.
>
> BTW, let me clear up some misinformation that the media and the GW crowd
> have been spreading. A month or so ago many newspapers were spreading a
> "story" that first appeared in the Guardian. The headline read
> "Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study." According to the
> Guardian, scientists and economists "have been offered $10,000 each by a
> lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to
> undermine a major climate change report."
>
> LIke so much about GW the story was misleading (basically a lie). The
> so-called "lobbyist" was the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI is a
> think tank, not a lobbyist group. The AEI, like many think tanks, gets
> contributions from many sources. Oil companies contribute less than 1% to
> AEI's total budget. The oil companies' contributions are general in
> nature and do not fund specific activities. The thing that triggered this
> latest outburst of false outrage was that the AEI had planned a roundtable
> discussion of global warming, to be attended by people with differing
> views on the subject. As is very common among all think tanks they would
> compensate those who wrote scholarly articles to be presentted at the
> roundtable.
> The reality is that no on, oil companies or otherwise, was paying
> scientists to create papers or do research to challenge the GW boogeyman.
> See http://www.aei.org/doclib/20070209_demuthreply.pdf and
> http://www.nowpublic.com/scenes_from_the_climate_inquisition
>
> If the GW crowd is so convinced of the righteousness of its cause why
> does it constantly have to rely on lies and halftruths?
>
>
> Chuck Dolci
>
>
>
> "Davy, Gordon" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I have looked over your email exchange with Steve Gregory and from your
> comments you give the impression that you believe in truth by the numbers.
> Whichever position has the predominant number of adherents is the truth.
> We have discussed this before. That is not the way science is done, and
> you know it.
> ***
> Gordon Davy
>
|
