"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest
and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A
central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those
in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in
any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the
likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is
very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted
that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular
science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on
a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian
scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is
every environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the
outside, Red on the
inside.

Where do you get ideas like that? You don't have a shred of evidence to
prove that statement. The question is why are you so quick to believe
the word of the energy industry that no amount of burning of fossil
fuels has any negative effect on the planet? They are telling you that
we can burn all the fossil fuels we want and it doesn't cause any harm,
and that if you say it does you're crazy. The truth is if you believe
them then you are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco
company executives who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you
can't see the producers of pollution have financial interests in lying
to you.


I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to
enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

No argument there, but that's another issue. The question is about
whether humans can negatively affect the ecology of the planet by
burning fossil fuels. The two sides on this issue are the producers of
the pollution are on one and scientists are on the other. You believe
the polluters. I'd say you have a personal bias and that is why you
believe the producers of pollution. You just want to believe them like a
Christian wants to believe the Bible. If you look at just the facts you
would see the logic in believing we can cause negative effects on the
planet. All you have to do is see the air pollution in China to know
what we can do. To think we can do the same thing on a global level is
pretty easy to believe. Unless you start up with your mind made up.
You've been snookered by the polluters lies, and they are good at it.

Hawke

The AGW movement will never regain credibility. You guys had a shot but
threw it away.


Well, I just heard an advertisement from BP (British Petroleum) and in the
ad they were talking about global warming and what they are doing to
prevent it and how they were at the forefront of changing to new forms of
clean energy. I just wonder why they would be doing that if they didn't
know that the burning of fossil fuels was causing problems. Apparently,
the oil companies do know what their products are doing and some are
adapting to a situation where they are going to eventually change to
alternative energy sources. That alone ought to tell you they think global
warming is real and they have plenty of experts telling them it is too.
But you prefer to listen to the minority of non mainstream science that
denies what the majority believes. Did you believe the tobacco executives
too when they said they didn't think tobacco was addictive?

Hawke

OK, keyword here is "Advertisement"! The reason a company advertises is to
sell goods or services. A good advertisement invokes a positive emotional
response in the target audience and ties it to the product and the company
to boost sales. The advertisement targets people that are "concerned" about
the environment and sells stuff to them or enhances the companies image to
those people for future sales. Drawing conclusions from advertisements is
as foolish as claiming "It MUST be true, I read it in a novel!"