"Red" wrote in message
...
Jon,
You're missing the point I was making. The "vast majority of scientists
who are knowledgeable in this area" are making their living on grants.
They have an investment on making you believe what they are

Come on... the vast majority of scientists believe in science before they
believe in grant money. Their primary belief structure is based on seeking
the truth.

telling you so they can continue getting grants which is how they make
their living. They don't have to tell you the truth, and in this case they
aren't, they just need you to buy into their story so they can keep
getting paid. Bishop Al is on target because he's parroting those grant
receiving "scientists". And yes, it IS a bad thing for AG to be making
money on this, because he's hoodwinking people into falsly believing
things that are going to ultimately cost them their livelyhood, their
savings, and their future. And he wants, more than anything, to be a King.
No problem here with someone wanting to make money, even lots of

This is just your rant and certainly your opinion, but you sure make it
sound like fact. It isn't.

it. But gaining control and wealth on the backs of the rest of us using
false pretenses is always wrong. Once again, reputable scientists - the
ones who have no investment, say that we do not yet have the ability to
interpret the research one way or the other. Until that day when they can,
Al is still a leech. And if it ultimately IS true that there is global
warming, it still isn't Bishop Al's place to tell me without real solid
science that it is MY fault and even less his place to tell me to change
my meager lifestyle - especially when HE is polluting more than any of us.
False gods...
Red

Look how you refer to him.. Bishop Al. This makes your whole argument sound
foolish.

I have no problem if you don't believe humans are causing GW. It's your
right to believe or not. I choose to believe that it's better to be safe
than sorry, and the way to be safe doesn't hurt the economy if done
properly. There are always going to be people hurt by new ways of doing
things. That's life.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

I said some stuff, and Jon calmly replied:
This is just your rant and certainly your opinion, but you sure make it
sound like fact. It isn't.

Therein lies the problem... how specifically do you *know* it isn't
fact? Maybe you haven't been exposed to other information because like
politicians the press pretty much only carries the doom and gloom
message. Have you done any of your own research into what other
scientists are saying?

You replied further:
Look how you refer to him.. Bishop Al. This makes your whole argument
sound foolish.

This was my original point. I am referring to him that way to illustrate
how people believe so deeply and have so much invested in believing the
politics of their particular party that it has turned into the practice
of religion. And religions like the two political parties in this
country represent have their sanctimonius leaders and gods who are
worshipped similar to any religion. And those who are the true believers
are completely and totally unwilling to see or hear anything else that
may be even slightly different than what their particular
politico/religious leaders are spouting. To even suggest something
different brings cries of HERETIC! Unbeliever! Stone him!

I have no problem if you don't believe humans are causing GW. It's your
right to believe or not. I choose to believe that it's better to be
safe than sorry, and the way to be safe doesn't hurt the economy if
done properly.

Thank you for recognizing my right to believe differently than you. And
as I've said, I also believe that we as a nation and as individuals
should be doing things to help keep our water and air clean. What I do
not beleive is that some unsubstantiated "science" should be used by
politicians as a vehicle to usurp our rights or cost us our livelyhood -
especially since those same politicians are not doing it for altruistic
reasons, but are doing it to gain more control over us and steal our
hard earned money. And that is what is behind AG's bull****. By the way,
have you ever seen the government do something "properly" that hasn't
cost you in the long run? If they could, I'd be happy to let them as
long as they don't step on my rights. Fact is when you entice business
to do something about a problem and let them to make a profit doing it,
they usually come up with a far better solution than the government ever
could.

There are always going to be people hurt by new ways of doing things.
That's life.
-- "j" ganz @@

And that is always wrong when done on purpose, as is in this case. This
is all about politics, not about science. And if enough people stopped
accepting what their politicians say just because they say it, and start
thinking for themselves and evaluating all the available information on
any subject, we would be far far better off as a nation and as a people
and we would be able to force politicians to do what is good for the
country, not just what is good for their reelection...
Of course the downside to that would be that we might all start getting
along better as we would begin again to be able to start having respect
for each other and each other's opinions - since those would BE each
other's opinions, not the opinions of their politicians simply repeated.
I'm done.
Red

On Oct 31, 12:34 pm, Red wrote:
... Therein lies the problem... how specifically do you *know* it isn't
fact? Maybe you haven't been exposed to other information because like
politicians the press pretty much only carries the doom and gloom
message. Have you done any of your own research into what other
scientists are saying? ...

Have you seen: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1686?

I certainly wouldn't argue that scientists are super humans, perfectly
disinterested, unaffected by fads, fashion or grant money. Nor are
they able to escape the limits of talent, time or resources. And it
seems axiomatic that politicians aren't always truthful with their
constituents. But how does it follow that there is a conspiracy to
deceive? If nothing else, Occam's razor suggests that a complex
theory like yours with its complete perversion of academia, media and
politics is less likely than the simple theory that most climate
scientists are telling the truth as they see it. So, I've got to ask,
where is your evidence for this conspiracy?

-- Tom.