Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


"Capt. JG" wrote in message



So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")



You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is
far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who
disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business.
That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always a
couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...



Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw valid
conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid conclusions,
then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how the earth is only
10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not making any sense at
this point.


No...it's you who don't make sense...over the long term...the millions
of years that one can look at, the tests, based on core samplings, tree
rings, etc etc etc say that this is a cyclical and historical event...I
suppose yur contention os that there must have been ancient
civilisations of man that cuased it to happen before..if you look at
climate and weather patterns over short term, you lose track of the
previous cycles ..you cannot make conclusions based on the short erm
relative to earth climatic change...I really don't think you understand
this at all...