On Jan 19, 5:05*pm, Hawke wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/com...mment.news.123