Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be
able to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged,
do you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that
there is no global warming danger?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

I think that the real issue is whether it's a "danger". It's clear at this
point that treating it as such is going to result in much government
wheelspinning and redistribution of wealth and no corrective action to speak
of. So rather than treat it as a "danger", why not just assume that it's
going to happen and look for opportunities instead?