Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis
There is no consensus.

The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review.

Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda
and not involved in science.

I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk.

Define 'it'.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous
It has been nearly 200 years and the debate on evolution is still going
on. Cancer has been a topic of investigation for over 60 years, and
still there is no cure for cancer.

How can the debate on the climate and global warming, a significantly
more complex system, be understood after about 20 years. The climate
cycles are over 100000 years in length and they claim to understand them
with about 200 years of data, of which the last 50 years are accurate.
Sounds like poor science to me.

If those that promote global warming truly believe that global warming
was a problem that had to be addressed they would be 100% behind nuclear
power which has NO greenhouse gasses. Since the supporters of global
warming are against nuclear energy, the only conclusion is it is
strictly politics.