24-11-2009, 11:30 PM
With respect, Peter: We disagree. I hold not much in the way of credentials in anything, but I have put a great deal of effort in my 63 years into trying to figure out what in hell is going on--this most especially after I noticed a number of significant leaders (I'm American) were being assassinated, the official investigations were blatant whitewashes or muddying of the waters, and that most everybody seemed to be running around as if hypnotized, playing games related to "money" when they weren't watching TV. I feel as if I have been witnessing a very slow-motion tragedy of death and maiming and worse for the past 40 years, and it's not good.
But because we disagree is no reason not to try to communicate with one another. To that end, may I inquire in all sincerity: When you look at such as the following report, where do you think the author is coming from? Do you regard it as intentional propaganda, misinformed science, or what?
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time [/FONT]
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., PhD, D.Sc. PDF file[/FONT]
This seems a good place to mention, though I don't see it as related to my question above, that the exposure of the climate change hoaxers at Britain's Climatic Research Unit doesn’t disprove claims of anthropogenic global warming and potential catastrophe therefrom one way or the other. It certainly exposes something well-worth examining, but it’s not science.
But because we disagree is no reason not to try to communicate with one another. To that end, may I inquire in all sincerity: When you look at such as the following report, where do you think the author is coming from? Do you regard it as intentional propaganda, misinformed science, or what?
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time [/FONT]
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., PhD, D.Sc. PDF file[/FONT]
This seems a good place to mention, though I don't see it as related to my question above, that the exposure of the climate change hoaxers at Britain's Climatic Research Unit doesn’t disprove claims of anthropogenic global warming and potential catastrophe therefrom one way or the other. It certainly exposes something well-worth examining, but it’s not science.