[blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 45, Issue 16

Tue Feb 26 09:07:41 CST 2008

Global warming only exists as long as the sun's activity is going strong,
has little or nothing to do with carbon emissions and we are still far more
likely to enter into an ice age than "a great melt"

Edward L. Myers III, Esq.
Deputy Executive Director

Arizona Center for Disability Law
3839 North 3rd Street Ste. 209
Phoenix, Az 85012

Phone: 602-274-6287
Fax: 602-274-6779
www.azdisabilitylaw.org 

This Communication is confidential and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above.  If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately destroy it and notify the sender by reply
e-mail or by telephone at 1(800) 927-2260.

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Stephanie Ortoleva
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:52 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List; blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 45, Issue 16

My heavens, I am amazed.  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 her or his head in the sand, 
as another colleague says.

Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it 
would have been better had we started 10 years ago.  I never can 
understand why people just don't seem to get science over mythology.

As blind people, we have learned to adjust to the change from the 
horse and buggy to the car and I'd guess we can develop techniques to 
address this one too.

Stephanie

At 04:18 PM 2/25/2008, ger sadlier wrote:
>On re reading my previous e-mail, it may have been a bit 'strongly' worded.
>
>   OI don't retract any of the centiments however and I agree with 
> every word of Chris's e-mail.
>
>   Even if we were wrong about global warming, I would argue that 
> its better on the side that will save the planit, not that which 
> puts our planit in danger.
>
>   Finally regarding the high-bread car, is their a clear and 
> present danger of the production of a vehicle which puts life at 
> risk, presumably through being noiseless?
>
>   Unless such is likely in the near future, regulating against the 
> possibility is like boulting the stable door before the horse has 
> even had the chance to come in.
>
>   Perhaps, in the U.S. there is such a threat though, in which case 
> good luck.
>
>   Gerard
>
>
>blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote:
>   Send blindlaw mailing list submissions to
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of blindlaw digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: 'environmental zelots' (ger sadlier)
>2. Re: 'environmental zealots' (David Andrews)
>3. Re: 'environmental zealots' (Russell J. Thomas, Jr.)
>4. Re: 'environmental zelots' (Craig Borne)
>5. Re: 'environmental zelots' (Mike Freeman)
>6. Re: 'environmental zelots' (Chris Danielsen)
>7. Re: 'environmental zelots' (Russell J. Thomas, Jr.)
>8. Re: 'environmental zelots' (Chris Danielsen)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:28:49 +0000 (GMT)
>From: ger sadlier
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>Message-ID: <290021.77768.qm at web26004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>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
>-------------- next part --------------
>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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:34:40 -0600
>From: David Andrews
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zealots'
>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Most of the public sees it, it is our current bone-headed
>administration that is the problem.
>
>Dave
>
>At 12:28 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote:
> >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
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1295 - Release Date:
> >2/23/2008 9:35 PM
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:06:44 -0800
>From: "Russell J. Thomas, Jr."
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zealots'
>To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'"
>Message-ID: <000601c87718$65705440$1602a8c0 at RJT>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>It might be helpful if there was an effort made to educate the three
>remaining presidential candidates on the issue with the hope that something
>might be accomplished in 2009, if no action is taken this year.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of David Andrews
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 10:35 AM
>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zealots'
>
>Most of the public sees it, it is our current bone-headed
>administration that is the problem.
>
>Dave
>
>At 12:28 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote:
> >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
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1295 - Release Date:
> >2/23/2008 9:35 PM
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:45:14 -0500
>From: "Craig Borne"
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'"
>Message-ID: <002501c8771d$c7cbd380$0200a8c0 at computer>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>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
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:51:49 -0800
>From: "Mike Freeman"
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List"
>Message-ID: <000c01c8772f$76131730$014bbd43 at owner96190708e>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Right on!
>
>Let's here it for the 1500-year solar cycle! And we aren't nearly as wrm
>as we were in the Medieval Warming Period (900-1300 A.D.) yet!
>
>Mike
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Craig Borne
>To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
>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
>-------------- next part --------------
>Right on!
>?
>Let's here it for the 1500-year solar cycle! And we aren't nearly as 
>wrm as we were in the Medieval Warming Period (900-1300 A.D.) yet!
>?
>Mike
>?
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
>mailto:cjborne at comcast.net Craig Borne
>To:
>mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
>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
>mailto:cjborne at comcast.net cjborne at comcast.net
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org 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: mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org 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 http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw 
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:34:32 -0500
>From: "Chris Danielsen"
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'"
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>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
>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>  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

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