On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:10:53 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

It sure didn't help when the Democrats walked out of the Al Gore hearing so as to show their disdain
for Bjorn Lomborg. Now Huffington is saying he is changing his tune - becoming more accepting of the
fact that global climate change is occurring. Even during that hearing he didn't dispute the
occurrence of global climate change, but did dispute several of Al's findings - which were quite
inaccurate.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:08:47 -0400, wrote:

It certainly calls into question the use of ethanol as a fuel.

===

That's a classic example of a scientific issue becoming politicized.
Now we'll have to offer additional agricultural subsidies just to stop
that misguided program.