You left out the best part of the article jttmab
Comments
3. Skip | May 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Global warming orthodoxy is political and obviated as a premise with only one conclusion, a carbon tax. The word smiths here seem so adhered to this orthodoxy that they give no quarter. The fact of strangled funding for anyone who challenges global warming is good reason to wake up and smell the coffee.
There is small funding from the oil companies against global warming, but follow the money most everywhere else. There is no funding to challenge that greenhouse and carbon thesis. Why?
Again one must remind oneself again of the intractable paradigms in the history of science, and why the more people insist the world is flat the more the telescope beacons.
Look at the measurements, look at the ice cores. Look at the carbon dioxide content, and look at the post effects. Comprehensive research is necessary but unfunded. Only the proper conclusions are funded. That is no more science than a witch doctor’s rattle.
6. Carl Wernerhoff | May 30th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Described here as a 22-year veteran of the Aerospace industry rather than a climatologist, one wonders whether Rellick is any more qualified than Cockburn to talk about global warming. I note that he does not correct Cockburn’s errors in this piece. Certainly, it would have helped to establish his credibility.
9. Michael Paladin | May 30th, 2007 at 5:14 am
In other words, if Alexander Cockburn agrees with you, he’s a fine, intelligent writer, but if he disagrees, he’s an idiot. It’s sort of like Cindy Sheehan’s situation where as long as she attacked only Republicans, she was a hero, but when she also criticized Democrats for their failures, she was dismissed and vilified by the same people who had previously hailed her courage and commitment. Can anyone say “partisan agenda?”
bestcyrano.org |
