"DSK" wrote in message
...
If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first
post proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at least
equal to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can employ that
can spare you further ridicule.


Gene Kearns wrote:
Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration. If this is the best you can provide, given
the number of credible scientists working on the problem, you really
don't have much science to back your position up, do you?


You mean like the doctors who used to go on TV in the 50s and 60s to say
that smoking cigarettes was good for you?

DSK


Actually, smoking *is* good for some people in terms of "relaxing" or
"calming the nerves", which is what the 1950's doctors claimed. The links
to cancer, heart disease and other smoking induced problems had not been
made at that time.

Obviously now it is well established that the risks of those problems far
outweigh the "calming" benefit.

RCE