On Jan 23, 11:14*am, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

This whole topic has to be looked at from a simplified position.

You can break it into two camps. Those who are willing to believe, and
those who won't.
Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Those who are willing to believe that there is a threat from global
warming, will believe that, even if they don't have any evidence. (I'm
not saying that there isn't any evidence, all I am saying is that many
believers do not, themselves, have any evidence.) They just accept it
a gospel. You cannot argue/discuss this topic with people who have
become believers.

Now let's assume that there is a warming trend. How much of it is due
to the influence of man? How much of that influence can be helped?
Some CO2 escapes in each breath when I sleep. Etc.

So... what's in it for those who are willing to spend a wad of money
trying to convert the unbelievers?

Who benefits most from which position? Which research results are
skewed by the writers of the cheques that pay for such research?

I think I will go visit the website of The Onion, and get myself some
facts.