On 12/20/09 3:00 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:54 am, "D.Duck" wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex
nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis
in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.
Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the
other AGW
types to defend this.
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one
side of the "science" is presented.
Go ahead - defend this.
I'll wait.
Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.
It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach
some
troublesome level.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
And the article does nothing to answer that question.
Of course it doesn't, nobody has that answer.

Can you answer the question?


Untrue. It can be and has been answered. Adverse climate change is
happening. It will get worse. We are a significant contributor. We can
prevent things from spiraling out of control.

Especially since no tangible proof exists it is with in our control at
all. In fact, clear evidence exists that it is NOT within our ability to
control.



Why are you and the other troglodytes so fearful of mans' efforts to
reduce his polluting of the planet? What's the downside? More efficient
cars? More windmills? More solar industry? Less demand for oil-based
products?