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.

I don't think their ideas are all that new. These have been around for
20 some odd years. They have just been suppressed. When one can't create
a argument against an opposing view, the actions have - on this subject
been not to allow the view to be debated and discussed. Or to discredit
the messenger when one has no basis for discrediting the message.

I wonder how many of the big TV networks will pick this up and air it ?
I watch a two hour long program on one of the big TV networks that was
suppose to be on global climet. But ended up being on polution in
general. For some reason they just could not seem to locate anyone who
would not say that man was not responsable to the earths climent cycles.


My objections a

1) one sided (as was Al Gore's)

I can agree that they are only voicing their side. But one of the
problems with this debate all along is that we have been bombarded with
one sided material from goverment funded scientist saying that we as
people are having a big effect on climent. Yes I beleive that man has no
or little effect on the global climent. But I still watch programs and
read material from those whom I do not agree. Apparently you do not
agree with this, as you have such a passion for what you beleive. But
not the time to watch a 75 minute program that has a opposing view.

As I had stated before we need to have a real discusssion that is not
just from political whores who suck funds from the public feeling bin.
And these guys have the courage to stand up against the massive
political enviromental machine. They have more guts then most. They did
not hide who they are and what they really think. But have got their
point accross without the mainstream media being able to stop them. And
they didn't wear masks.

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.

As are all the documentaries that disagree with them as noted above. I
wonder what would happen if the billions of dollars provided to the
scientist that are at least saying they beleive man is controling the
worlds climent just stopped being avaiable ?

If the political winds changed how many would abandon their position
just got find a way to the money. No way to really know of course. The
people in this program are holding or have held some high level
positions in the field of earth science. I am sure the goverment is
going to be jumping at the chance to drop some of these billions the US
goverment is spending to further their research.

3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing
indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985

Maybe inconsistent with the folks who get their money from these
goverment programs and or grants. It does not mean their data is incorrect.

Cheers.

Jack Redington