On 1/24/2010 2:18 PM, 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?

Sorry, I don't buy into the "we won't discuss it until you agree to our
fundamentally flawed premise" BS.

If you really mean "posting links" discussing an issue that you don't
agree with because the issues raised don't fit in with your POV, fine?

Tell me then, where else are you going to get the HEALTHY skepticism
that is an absolute necessity in ANY _legitimate_ scientific endeavor?

You damn sure don't see it discussed in the media in this country.

On that note, here is somewhat of a gasp HEALTHY "skeptic" who backs
up his skepticism with scientific research and advances an alternative
theory that could well be as valid as CO2 induced AGW:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

... go ahead, since it's posting another link, dismiss/ignore him as
OPINION while you're at it.

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?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

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...

Say what?

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.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

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