"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and
most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central
claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the
Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in
any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the
likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is
very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted
that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular
science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a
short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian
scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is every
environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the
outside, Red on the
inside.

Where do you get ideas like that? You don't have a shred of evidence to
prove that statement. The question is why are you so quick to believe the
word of the energy industry that no amount of burning of fossil fuels has
any negative effect on the planet? They are telling you that we can burn
all the fossil fuels we want and it doesn't cause any harm, and that if
you say it does you're crazy. The truth is if you believe them then you
are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco company executives
who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you can't see the
producers of pollution have financial interests in lying to you.


I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to
enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

No argument there, but that's another issue. The question is about whether
humans can negatively affect the ecology of the planet by burning fossil
fuels. The two sides on this issue are the producers of the pollution are
on one and scientists are on the other. You believe the polluters. I'd say
you have a personal bias and that is why you believe the producers of
pollution. You just want to believe them like a Christian wants to believe
the Bible. If you look at just the facts you would see the logic in
believing we can cause negative effects on the planet. All you have to do
is see the air pollution in China to know what we can do. To think we can
do the same thing on a global level is pretty easy to believe. Unless you
start up with your mind made up. You've been snookered by the polluters
lies, and they are good at it.

Hawke

The AGW movement will never regain credibility. You guys had a shot but
threw it away.