On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:26:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

"BAR" wrote in message
news:9badnchpXuDT2AnXnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews. com...
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 =
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&n...=&aqi=g 9g-s1

Seriously... "it" is global climate change, as you indicated in the copied
link, specifically warming.

Ah yes, *if* the global climate change has the impacts some predice,
*then* it could be a national security issue.

Note that the *cause* of the change is irrelevant to the military's
stance, and *it* is not considered a national security risk. That is
the science that is 'unsettled'.

FWIW, I find the arguments presented by you, wf3h, and Loogy to have
the same merit.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous