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...


If the cost to me of having to make that conclusion is a significant
portion of my way of life, then the prudent conclusion is to recognize that
the person is paranoid and most likely no one is out to get him. Putting
someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine whether or not the
paranoid person is really in danger might be prudent. Destroying the
economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid delusions is not.

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.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham