<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Stan,<br>
<br>
<br>
All I can tell you is my experience. I am 54 years old. I am
sitting here holding my "National Geographic Reader" that I was
given in 4th grade (1970). The ENTIRE issue is dedicated to: <br>
<br>
"The Coming Ice Age"<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Inside - are a dozen stories about how the world will NOT be
able to feed itself by the year 2001 due to the cooling and the
advancing glaciers. Much of it due to the pollution man was
spewing intto the atmosphere was causing less sunlight to hit the
planet and blah, blah, blah.<br>
<br>
I am VERY glad that I did not dedicate my entire life to stopping
the impending disaster.<br>
<br>
I suspect the "anthropogenic global warming" disasters will be of
a similar caliber to the Ice age disasters from my youth.<br>
<br>
I also say that most "environmentalists" are not concerned about
the environment AT ALL...instead, they are concerned about the
environment - <b>as they remember it. <br>
</b><br>
I have fossil palm tree leaves that I found in my yard here in
Maryland. I LIKE palm trees. Maryland doesn't HAVE any palm
trees now. <br>
<br>
Those damn native Americans must have killed them all. Damn
those humans.......<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes, we should try to minimize our impact. But, we are on a
deserted island rock hanging in space. If we do not get our
species off of it - we are DOOMED to extinction.<br>
<br>
I love nature as much as anybody. <br>
<br>
But, if we need to make this planet "Trantor" to get off of it -
then so be it. If we need to raze EVERY mountain, drain every
ocean, and kill EVERY species to do so, then THAT is what you do.<br>
<br>
I don't think we need to be THAT severe.<br>
<br>
But, there IS a giant meteor SOMEWHERE in the universe on a DIRECT
collision course with this planet.<br>
<br>
<b>Never forget the purpose of the game - save the species - US.</b><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/16/2013 11:10 PM, Stan Gorodenski wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5120583A.2020500@commspeed.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 2/16/2013 8:16 PM, Foley, Patrick wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Count me (and the great majority of atmospheric scientists) among the climate change alarmists.
This is however not my area of expertise. Paul should go argue this out with NOAA scientists. Or any atmospheric scientists.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve</a>
Skepticism in science is a very useful tool. But one should be skeptical of ones own views also. Nietzsche said once " The courage of one's convictions -- a common error; real courage is questioning one's own convictions." Scientists (including climate change "alarmists") do this all the time. That is the essence of science. As far as I can see, most climate change deniers do not question their own belief systems or what motivates them.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Good point. This never occurred to me. I wonder if climate change
deniers even know themselves what motivates them. I can see all kinds of
influences, including the political and religious group one belongs to.
I also wonder if it is the culture of anti-science that is fostering
this. The deniers are intelligent. Because of the anti-science culture
they make their own interpretations of data in lieu of those of scientists.
Stan
_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu">Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l">http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>