[blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Sun Feb 24 19:55:53 CST 2008

Now there's something we should all be able to agree on.  The reason the
Federation has not taken a position on the environmental merits (or lack
thereof) of the hybrid car is precisely because environmentalism really
isn't the issue 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Russell J. Thomas, Jr.
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 8:48 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

The real issue here is that global warming, whether real or imagined, should
not serve as an excuse not to regulate the hybrid car, if that is necessary
to protect human life.

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Danielsen
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:35 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Craig,

For what it's worth, and with due respect, I think the number of scientists
who disagree with the prevailing theory of global warming is a distinct
minority, not an equal number to that of its proponents.  Also, no one
really disagrees that global warming is occurring, the disagreement is over
what causes it and whether it is a cyclical event driven by climatic factors
that we can't control or a phenomenon caused by factors (namely the emission
of greenhouse gases) that we can.  Finally, it has become fashionable
nowadays to say that anything that is a scientific "theory," such as
evolution or global warming, is by definition not a fact.  But the word
"theory" means something quite different in scientific discussion than it
means in conventional language.  In science, a "theory" is a coherent
explanation of something based on the facts that we know through observation
and study; it is not simply a guess.  Theories may be incomplete, but they
aren't simply made up.  They are based, as you say, often on circumstantial
evidence.  But if circumstantial evidence is enough to put a man to death
(as it often is), it should also be enough to serve as a legitimate template
for a debate about changing environmental policy.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Craig Borne
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:45 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

With all due respect, there are an equal number of scientists that view
global warming with suspicion than hail it is a legitimate threat.
Documentaries, such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," are peppered with
inaccuracies but also include some verified truths.
This matter is one of subjective speculation on both sides, but it is in no
way a scientific fact.  Global warming is still a theory, and as such, the
merits of this theory are ripe for discussion and disagreement.  Folks with
a view against global warming should not be categorized as ostriches, just
as proponents of global warming cannot claim a scientific truth with so many
experts in the scientific community not acknowledging its existence.
To bring it back to the purpose of the list, the evidence is circumstantial
at best, not direct.
Craig 

Craig Borne
Baltimore, Maryland
cjborne at comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of ger sadlier
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:29 PM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the absurd.

  Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge
burying his head in the sand.

  Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it
would have been better had they started 10 years ago.

  In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people are
extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S. public are
unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
  (no pun intended given the list.)

  As to the 'quiet car'
  1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a mennace
  2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without leading
to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.

  implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard blind
and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that factory to
keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its existence.

  It really is off the wall.

  G

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

__________ NOD32 2898 (20080223) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

__________ NOD32 2898 (20080223) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com