[MD] CO2 catcher

[Heather Perella]

     [Ian]
> Remember I'm an "excluded middles" kind of
pragmatist.

     Yes, I understand where you come from.  Science
is political, for politics is a group of people
recognizing a common interest, and with scientists
this common interest is science.  They do have to
understand the data and correctly communicate their
findings.  Yet, what of strict politics which doesn't
go into the field and see the pollution or ignores the
pollution.  Politicians without the leg work are the
same as ivory tower scientists without the leg
work/field work.  Would not middle ground be found
with those doing the leg work and consistently
arriving at similar conclusions amongst a group going
in different directions (around the earth) and coming
back with similar findings.  This is where the debate
begins.  The debate is with those that don't do the
leg work, don't look at the data found by those that
do the leg work, and just come up with conclusions
based on it's all politics so ignore these scientific
conclusions.
     Platt has provide more sources for his
conclusions, but I've asked him what about those
conclusions has lead to his 'ignore global warming'
conclusion.  I've also asked what lead to this
conclusion of his.  Was it his 'no leg-work' ivory
tower view, and/or has somebody persuaded him, and/or
has he looked at the data and come to this conclusion
on his own?  

SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front