On 11/24/03 at 04:26 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> said:
But in the debate over the environment, there is no
consensus. Some
scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of
the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's
campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.
However, this is merely a politically motivated claim.
The asserted
"consensus" does not exist. Many prominent scientists disagree;
therefore, there is no consensus.
and on 11/24/03 at 05:12 PM he said:
The only relation to global warming is the similarity
in how the two
ideas have been handled. In both cases:
1. There was never any scientific consensus.
2. Politicians rushed in, urging quick action.
This is complete and utter nonsense. In Europe, the debate is closed, it
is no even longer considered controversial. Global warming is considered a
given, and low-lying countries like Holland are considering in practical
terms what they will need to do to protect themselves as sea levels rise
ten or twenty of fifty centimeters over the next century. Although no one
pretends to understand the mechanism in all its detail, it is accepted as
a fact that the main cause of GW is burning fossil fuels, and as such
there is increasing interest in alternative sources of energy like wind
power.
In Europe as well as other parts of the world, the issue in American is
not perceived as it is in Ed's parochial vision as one of the Dems vs the
Repubs. Rather, we see BOTH the Ds and the Rs as intellectually dishonest
cowards beholden to corporate money who are not willing to jeopardize
their necks by telling their countrypeople they can no longer drive their
gas-guzzling SUVs.
This issue is not driven by politicians as Ed suggests, it is driven by
COMMON SENSE.
V.