Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Yes I do - and one of them is an actual, honest-to-god geo-physical
scientist - not some hammer head dweeb who can't read and just wants
to tickle his twinkie by picking fights over who's got the biggest
bleeding heart.

Wake up a little grumpy this morning?


I'm on your side jackass - if you can't parse that, then go bother
somebody else.

Considering that I don't really have a "side" that's an interesting
proposition.


I'm not interested in your "opinion" - I'm interested in the facts and
the facts are this:

Global warming is not proven.

No, it's not "proven" but the list of observed effects pointing to a
warming trend is very long. The list of observed effects pointing to a
cooling trend is almost nil. So, which way would you place your bet?



... Pollution can have more devastating
effects on civilization than something that nobody knows how to even
describe, never mind deal with.

It is true that pollution can be devastating. But "global warming" can
be pretty well described, depending on who you listen to. As for
"dealing with" it, how can we do that when 1- we don't know what causing
it and 2- even if we did, action would have to be more nearly universal
than any human action ever in history. And we can't even agree on what
color socks to wear!


Do yourself a favour and actually read a scientific treatise on the
subject rather than some jerk off tabloid written by a bearded
nutcase.

Do yourself a favor and don't be such a judgemental asshole. You have no
idea what sources of info I refer to.

DSK