In a message dated 2/10/2007 9:26:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rbtarara@sprynet.com writes:
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.
)))))))))))))))))))))
You must be kidding. They want to be able to quote scientists in their
denial that global warming is related to human activities, something not in much
dispute. Last time I checked science based anything doesn't presume the
answer before the research. That's called cooking the results.
))))))))))))))
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?
)))))))))))))))))))
We already know the build up of CO2 is bad. Do we criticize research to cure
cancer because it assumes cancer is bad for one's health.
)))))))))))))))))))))))
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.
)))))))))))))))
I think the corporate attack on the veracity of science is a worthy subject
and shouldn't have a liberal bias. Sadly it seems to.