Re: OT: Inconvenient Truths

dbu, wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <1172463487.003424.289110@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue]
> Inconvenient Truths
> Novel science fiction on global warming.
>
> By Patrick J. Michaels
>
> This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his
> global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of
> science fiction.
>
> Â*‹ Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the
> Cato Institute...
>[color=green]
> > Cite a credible source, not something from a partisan political lobby
> > group.[/color]
>
> "Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the
> Cato Institute..."
>
> The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in
> Washington, D.C.
> The Institute's stated mission is "to broaden the parameters of public
> policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American
> principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and
> peace" by seeking greater involvement of the "lay public in questions of
> public policy and the role of government."[/color]
[color=blue]
> "In the Americas, libertarianism usually refers to a political
> philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of their
> own life and should be free to do whatever they wish with their person
> or property, as long as they respect the liberty of others."
>
> Seems credible to me. If you have a problem with it then I guess you
> have a problem with it.[/color]

It's unethical to cite a political organization as a source of
scientific information.
[color=blue]
> How about some of the places you've posted, they aren't any more or less
> credible.[/color]

I've cited political sources only for political matters. I haven't
stooped so low as to mix political sources with science.
[color=blue]
> Opinions vary on this subject of global warming, that's why
> it's call controversial subject. Some people fall head over heals for
> it and others are skeptical.[/color]

IOW they're either crazy and believe in it, or they're wise and
skeptical. Very fair of you.
[color=blue]
> Skeptical = not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations[/color]

Some people claim to be skeptical when in reality they're merely
stubborn or close-minded.
[color=blue]
> Do you see anything wrong about being skeptical? Being skeptical does
> not mean a theory has been rejected totally,[/color]

It never has, nor has a flower ever smelled like Wednesday.
[color=blue]
> it only means what it says, not easily convinced or having doubts.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Thankfully we have skeptics and not everyone marches locked
> step for global warming.[/color]

Honest, real skeptics will look to science for answers about science,
but the Cato institute isn't about science but philosophy, economics
and politics.