Homestead mailing list

[bob ford <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>]

That isn't what this article is about, unless I mis-read.  He was a member of 
the HOL, I believe, who opposed the film as indoctrination, as pure science, 
with no recognition of opposing belief.  

This article is about the BBC distorting fact, to adavance belief.  Not the 
belief about man-made global warming apocalypse.  the fact, in this case, 
being the actual words in the  broadcast, which were edited to produce a 
result thaat co-incided with the belief s of the broadcast.

People, like me, should not be prevented from hearing both sides of the 
debate.  If we are only allowed to hear one side , we are not being taught.  
We are being indoctrinated.  

If you are a followerer of the global warming stuff, then accept the idea 
that I have no argument with the issue. I'm not that scientific myself, but 
on c-span, I have heard debate, with both sides represented by scientists.  I 
am not convinced, yet, one way or the other.  'just more confused, but still 
open=minded to the idea that the truth favors the man-made scenario.

My only argument is that both sides of the debate should continue to be 
heard.  And, I wonder about the veracity of the one side when the powers that 
be try to close down the other side.

The best thing I have heard about this  was a talk by Michael Chrichton (the 
writer)), also on C-span.  He said , to the effect, that while the man-made 
scenario has a good probabbility of being true, that is not what people are 
saying.  The are saying, instead, that it is absolutely true.  With nothing 
but consensus of conjecture as a proof.  

I think the only thing that fervent believers say that we can do, anyway, if 
their belief is true, is to try to not create so much carbon-dioxide.  From 
what I can think, that should be a good idea, anyway.

It's kinda like war.  I might believe that fighting for territory is natural, 
just as with other primates.  That doesn't mean, as a human, that I don't 
detest the ravages of war .....bobford




--- On Sat, 9/27/08, Jerry B <liberty AT kaballero.com> wrote:

> From: Jerry B <liberty AT kaballero.com>
> Subject: Re: [Homestead] BBC -glbl wrmg-propaganda investigation
> To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Saturday, September 27, 2008, 11:22 PM
> bob ford wrote:
> > I realize that some people are fervent believers in
> man-made global warming apocalypse.  I'm not stating an
> opinion one way or the other, I don't have an opinion
> about the issue itself; I don't know enough fact upon
> which to base an opinion. I don't deny or accept, I just
> don't know. 
> >
> > But, when all debate is shut down, by governmental or
> private powers; the skeptic in me asks; why are they so
> afraid of the debate.
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > BBC investigated after peer says climate change
> programme was biased 'one-sided polemic'
> >
> > By Tamara Cohen
> > Last updated at 2:54 AM on 27th September 2008
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063110/BBC-investigated-peer-says-climate-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html
> >   
> --------------------
> With the stakes being so utterly high, you are right. Why
> would someone 
> like "Lord Monckton [play] ... a key role in a legal
> challenge heard in 
> the High Court in October 2007 in an effort to prevent Al
> Gore’s film on 
> global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, from being shown in
> English 
> schools?" I wondered the same thing.
> 
> Jerry B
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/bobford79%40yahoo.com
> View the archives at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead