Re: More Gore

On May 27, 7:35 am, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 27, 9:57 am, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Tue, 27 May 2008 05:55:48 -0700 (PDT), "J.A. Legris"

<jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And this is the crux of the matter. The only way to estimate the
effects of CO2 is through scientific investigation, and that is what's
being done, with some alarming results. It's a mystery to me how the
likes of Eeyore, J.T., J.F., etc. have the gall to either ignore or to
impugn the consensus of  so many professional scientists. Where is
their data? Why aren't they publishing commentaries in professional
journals? Why don't they completely dismiss other large swaths of
science as well? Seems to me that if there's a worldwide conspiracy of
climatologists at work then it's probably just the tip of the iceberg!

---
You tar with a broad brush.

What I did was to question Al Gore's motives, which is hardly the same
thing as ignoring or impugning "the consensus of so many professional
scientists."

Matter of fact, I even posted a link to an article relating
deforestation to global warming, so it seems you've placed me in the
wrong camp.

JF

Maybe I've pegged you wrongly, but your evident hatred of Al Gore
("Who is this Al Gore ***?") seems to be a result of his position
on climate-change. There are lots of other people out there with
considerably less integrity than Al Gore. For example, compared to the
last few Presidents and Vice-Presidents, he would seem to be the most
honest of the bunch. He's smart too. So why are you so focussed on
him? You could do a lot better by attacking Bill Clinton and his Mini-
Me Hillary for trying to subvert the democratic process in their joint
quest for personal power at the expense of the republic.

I would place Gore somewhere between Carter (too nice to be evil) and
Quayle (too stupid).
.