[blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

[Dennis Clark]

Craig,
Do you have a citation for your source that "there are an equal number of 
scientists that view global warming with suspicion than hail it is a 
legitimate threat"?  Also, the evidence code in all the states where I am 
licensed give as much creditability to circumstantial evidence as direct 
evidence.  There are many people sitting in prison currently who wish that 
wasn't true.
Dennis

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Borne" <cjborne at comcast.net>
To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:45 AM
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