Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 11, 4:52 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 11, 4:31 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:



"Dan" wrote:

And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think
tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for
instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know*
they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters
of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far,
no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW.

This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of
the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the
same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get
creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily
or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are
successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox,
et al. continue to give them time.

I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply
counting them would be exhausting.

However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of
eminences does not make one a liar

It does if you state something that is false. Like "the earth is 6000
years old." Is that a lie?

(see wikipedia entry under
"Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling
evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly
observed phenomenon).


Oh come on. Science? Scientific authorities? It was church dogma.

Do you really think science is just like it was back then? If so, I
assume you refuse to use any technology, any modern medicine, etc.

There has been and continues to be evidence that
compels the aforementioned groups to *qualify* their statements.

And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
therefore that disaster is upon us.

Dan