nebel at ATHENA.CSDCO.COM
Sat Oct 25 10:26:21 MDT 1997
This is really being treated as a difference of scientific opinion?
Perhaps not. Where is the principled discussion? Why such a rush to
action on incomplete evidence?
My personal opinion is that global warming/ozone hole/power line radiation/
nuclear power plant emissions/radon is a crock, but I'd be willing to look
at real evidence as it trickles in over the long term.
As for "Marxist Dialetic", I just tossed in that phrase because it sounded
pompous, but upon reading the article on dialectic in the 11th edition:
"used in common parlance in a contemptous sense for verbal or purely
abstract disputation devoid of practical value," the label probably was
more accurate than intended, especially if one views Marxism historically as
a fight for the common peoples' interest which results ultimately in
furthering the interests of a privileged few.
"To all that which thou provest me thus, I refuse to give credence, and
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Richard Swerdlin wrote:
> > From: John Nebel
> > Subject: Re: Global warming
> > Even if there were ice age, it would have been started by global warming.
> > Is use of the global warming scare by Clinton, Gore, etc. a Marxist
> > dialetical strategy?
> > John Nebel
> John Nebel:
> You read too much into the idea of global warming. The idea
> of warming obviously involves differences of scientific opinion. It
> is more productive to view it in that light, instead of injecting KM.
> Richard Swerdlin
> (swerdlin at gte.net)
More information about the Rushtalk