On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:40:44 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 9:49*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...



Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

*http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

I noticed this was published in the great scientific journal...

CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots
activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan
organization.

Uh, Common dreams did nothing more than put the data, BY OTHERS on
it's sight.:

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met
Office's Hadley Center

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

Wonder why it wasn't published. Couldn't they pay someone to publish
it? Your cite had a definite anti-Bush sentiment not normally found in
scientific studies. Did you notice that also?
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H