[MD] global warming scam?

[MarshaV]

Gav,

As you can see your posts are arriving in a sorry 
state. Please fix this malfunction.

On one side scientists are saying that the 
warming of the planet is primarily a natural 
phenomenon.  The other side is saying it is 
primarily man-made phenomenon.  I am on the side 
of those thinking that humans have a major 
responsibility.  But I was wanting to consider 
this problem as a static pattern of value rather 
than something absolute and true.  But you and Platt have a fun time at it.

I often ignore the blah, blah, blah that goes on 
between Platt and Arlo, I can ignore this thread 
if it takes on the same tone.  (And btw, mostly I 
agree politically with Arlo.)

Marsha












At 06:37 PM 12/28/2008, you wrote:
>and what are these competing extremes? please be 
>specific marsha --- On Mon, 29/12/08, MarshaV 
><marshalz at charter.net> wrote: From: MarshaV 
><marshalz at charter.net> Subject: Re: [MD] global 
>warming scam? To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org 
>Received: Monday, 29 December, 2008, 1:57 AM At 
>09:32 AM 12/28/2008, Gav wrote: > i thought i 
>was being specific....you know by mentioning the 
>world's scientists warning to humanity from 91 i 
>think...the first earth summit...rio i think. 
>anyway maybe i should get more specific...i'll 
>try....hey i have a science degree (first class 
>actually folks) and i think science is an 
>honourable enterprise...very honourable. der. 
>yes like nearly all endeavours it is now tainted 
>with the corrupting claw off 'the market'; but 
>its intellectual raison d'etre is still 
>apparent, as opposed to being a blind slave to 
>the blatantly exploitative logic of the 
>market. > > science works. it is pragmatically 
>valuable...to an unprecedented level. it is a 
>very high value method of inquiry whose only 
>real fault is essentially one of 
>association...ie it's marriage with an 
>inadequate metaphysical foundation. > > if you 
>think the moq is about diminishing the value of 
>science i think you are headed in exactly the 
>wrong direction. Greetings Gav, There are 
>questions in this post.  Are they aimed at 
>someone specifically, or general questions? Is 
>science either to be honored or 
>diminished?  That's the choice.  One or zero? 
>My initial point was not whether or not science 
>deserves honors, but how obstacles are created 
>when competing extremes tangle. Marsha . . Shoot 
>for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land 
>among the stars......... . . Moq_Discuss mailing 
>list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
>Archives: 
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 
>Stay connected to the people that matter most 
>with a smarter inbox. Take a look 
>http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox 
>Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing 
>etc. 
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
>Archives: 
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.