From: "James Heartfield"
>
> Nobody could be in any doubt after the second round of the climate
> change conference that the debate is not about science, but about the
> rival claims of the major industrial powers, and that the substance of
> the issue is capitalist rivalry. Europe wants to restrain US industry,
> its own being rather more lacklustre, by introducing political
> limitations on the level of US economic activity.
So because politicians use this science to further political ends means the
science is itself flawed? What kind of logic is that?[JT]
>
> In keeping with the partisan nature of the debate, John thinks that he
> is at liberty to call one working scientist a liar and a whore. I would
> be interested to know if John has the elementary good manners to put
> these charges to the scientist in question personally, before making
> them here, behind his back. If not, then I have to say that it would be
> unethical to continue to entertain them here.
I am at liberty to read both scientists congressional testimony and comment
on the inconsistencies. If that exposes their deliberate deception then my
advice would be not to lie under oath and in the public record. If this
constitutes bad manners then you'll want to apologize to Fritjof Capra for
claiming, behind his back, that his book the "Tao of Physics" jumps to
'absurd conclusions' and is 'mystical mumbo-jumbo'. I am shocked and
appalled at this breach of ethics. I can see from this post that our
discussion of the science of climate change is at an end.[JT]
>