* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:06 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:24:36 -0400, Jeff said:

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 12:55 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:46 -0400, Jeff said:

No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?
A bit disingenuous, don't you think? Oh....you were trying to be cute.
An allegation was made that "most of the experts" would lose their
jobs if the theory were proved false. I've seen no evidence for that
at all.

Again, you're trying to be cute. Your rhetorical question was as follows:

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?
No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?

Your claim, in other words, is that the answer to the question (whether
experts touting global warming have jobs that depend on the theory's being
true) is to be found in a peer-reviewed journal article.

Pretty clear example of trying to blow smoke.

Do you have a peer-reviewed article to prove that? Otherwise, you're
just blowing smoke.

An allegation was made, one that verges on calling everyone who who
supports the theory of Global Warming corrupt. An yet, absolutely no
supporting evidence is given. That's blowing smoke!

And on the other side, its well established that much of the "anti"
research is funded by front groups supported by big oil, and published
in non-peer reviewed journals. That's mirrors!