It might be nice to have the full text of the letter that was sent to
scientists BEFORE going off half-cocked with inflammatory subject lines
(like the above) or sensationalist headlines as per the Guardian (not your
most
unbiased publication). From the little that was actually in the Guardian
account it sounded like the oil/fossil industry was seeking scientifically
based, negative criticism of the global warming report. Of course they are
not going to pay for supporting evidence--that is not in their
self-interest. None the less, they seemed to be seeking science-based
critiques.
Are we ready to criticize the $25 million dollar prize for developing a way
to remove CO2 because it 'assumes' that the CO2 is bad and will only pay for
a specific result?
If Bernard C. is going to keep inciting this list with politically charged
posts (subject lines tell a lot of the story) then don't be surprised if
some people fire back in kind.
Rick
**********************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
***********************************************
FREE Windows & Mac Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
Energy 2100 project info: http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/ENERGY_PROJECT/ENERGY2100.htm
********************************************************