On 28 Mar 2007 06:30:53 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Mar 28, 5:26?am, John H. wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 00:13:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:





On Mar 27, 8:46?pm, Jack Redington wrote:

Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you
have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you
ask about are answered in the film.

made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin

- more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi...

Jack Redington- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all
be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will
stop learning.

My objections a

1) one sided (as was Al Gore's)
2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every
detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in
general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details.
3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing
indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985

Chuck, please recommend a documentary that meets your approval. The CO2
numbers, which you'll see when you go back to watch the whole documentary,
lag the temperature numbers by some 800 years, not 40.

I am surprised that you and Don will not watch the whole thing. Perhaps
learning something different is a no-no?

Lastly, I highly recommend a book written by a liberal. The book is "The
Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. I'll make it easy for you:

http://tinyurl.com/2nabsq

--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Thanks for recommending a book by a liberal, but liberal bias is no
more useful in this debate than is right wing bias.


Snippage

Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading?
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H