roachboy

ustwo--in this area i would almost be inclined to respect something of your positions if you would just step down from your posture of "i am mister science and mister science says global warming is bullshit" and present a better range of better information to allow folk to come to their own conclusions about the matter.


seriously: i am curious to learn more about this issue.


but it seems that you do not imagine us smart enough to deal with legitimate information: instead you quote imhof's speech here or bite stuff from junkscience there: none of which does your case justice.

if there is a serious argument against global warming to be made, by all means make the argument and refer to sources that open up the topic.

i am not afraid of books and i imagine others are not either, so if that is what you have to refer to, then do it.

but this mister science shit is tiresome.
and saying you like trees and go fishing doesnt really help, particularly since you adduce it to the (continued) exclusion of data to back your claims up.

and it almost looks like you are trying to bully ch'i into agreeing with you.
now you woudlnt be trying to do that, would you?

------------------

from what i gather from your last post above, your real opposition to the notion of global warming does not seem to rest on the science you claim a monopoly on here--it seems to rest first and foremost on your irrational fear of what you imagine "socialism" to be. that positions you not as mister science but rather as some rightwing ideologue whose views are basically political even as you try to fob them off as scientific. i am not sure this is a good impression to generate. i do not understand what you are doing.


---------
it seems to me that below the surface of this debate about global wamring is another one about the american transportation model and its consequences. it seems to me that this debate is really about cars and all that they entail, from carbon monoxide emission levels to dependency on petroleum, from the interests of american automobile manufacturers and petroleum corporations and their political shills of both parties to those of folk who ride bicycles.

it seems to me further that this debate is really about whether this transportation model should be changed--perhaps with more emphasis on new automobile technologies to more mass transit (as examples)---and that the debate about the science (whatever you think of it) is a displacement of this other, more fundamental debate.

if that is the case, then it is really difficult to imagine how the political interests of the various parties with stakes in this question are to be distinguished from the types of arguments being made across scientific data.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite