hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Some years ago I indexed two books in about a six-week period.  There
had been a definitive technical study - can't remember the title - of the
trends in temperature and atmosphere.  One book was scholarly and
published by Columbia University Press, the other was popular and 
published by Harper & Roe (now Harper/Collins).  Using the same set
of statistics, the  Harper & Roe book proved that global warming was
an incontrovertible fact.  The other (Columbia) proved that we were 
heading into a new ice age.  Since that time I have just thought I would
wait and see who was correct - though I won't live long enough to see
the final outcome.

In a message dated 07/18/2006 6:03:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
wmorgan972@ameritech.net writes:
No, Jim.  Things that we think we know as fact may be completely discounted
in the future as  a "miss" by new information that scientists find.  Not all
scientists who believe this may or may not be a cyclical change are on the
carbon dole.  I do not get my info from Fox News regarding scientific
matters.  I prefer to read science magazines, PBS, check other sources
(books) and catch things on the web about items that catch my interest.  And
I do watch who sponsors what study.

So while you may believe that something today is honest fact, Jim, down the
road additional information may say differently.  I prefer to keep an open
mind and not think I KNOW for a fact what is a really convincing theory.  I
also do not believe that others are "misguided" because they don't allow for
the possibility that current scientific thought may not be the final word.
We now know the earth is NOT flat.  We now know that something fills "empty"
spaces in the universe (dark matter.)  The theory of relativity and the
previous laws of gravity are currently under suspicion right now.  Who knows
what else will be learned when more information about our planet is known?

Regardless whether we disagree on who is right about why the climate is
"different" or changing, don't you think the main point is for each of us to
actually DO something to do our parts?  I don't wait for any organization to
"guide" or force my actions.  I do what I can to reduce my own carbon
footprint and care for the piece of dirt I live on.  I purchase from those
who provide what I believe at the time to be "earth friendly" items and
avoid those who have proven they are not.  That takes no organization.  That
is just being responsible.   I'm sure you do the same.

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement