On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:31:32 +0000, richard wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:17:07 +0000, richard wrote:


PeterD wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:11:38 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:



PeterD wrote:


On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:36:10 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:


... and no fraud has been found
in the stolen data. lol


No fraud? What strange place are you living? The release of that
information showed exactly what underhanded dealings have been going
on to push Gore's agenda of power and wealth generation.

Yep, none. Third week, still zero verified fraud found. Nada. Zip.
Zilch.



Nothing verifiable is what the AGW fans are producing. Faked,
manipulated data, and total lack of scientific professionalizim shows
exactly what's up: a total sham.


My opinion on this - for whatever you think it's worth - is that those who maintain that man made CO2 emissions do not
contribute to global warming are either stupid or intellectually dishonest as well as being irresponsible.

It is very simple:-

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to increase global temperature by blocking Infra red emissions to
space.
Increasing the temperature and similar effects like ocean acidification will have consequences that we don't understand.
For these reasons (and others - like melting glaciers, reduction of reflectivity of polar caps), we should take steps to reduce
CO2 emissions now.

How thick are you ?


Since if you studied the graphs of the past 200,000 years you would
discover that warm eras preceded high CO2 eras. Times arrow
conclusively breaks the presumed causal connection. There is no
reasonable way to support 1 occurred after A therefore 1
caused A.

IF that were true, it has no bearing on my argument whatsoever.
For example a warm era might give rise to increased forest fires thereby increasing CO2.
Your failure to comprehend just shows obdurate pigheadedness.

Why are cursing at the mirror? Might and maybe are so not proper causal connections.