Re: More Gore
- From: Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:57:32 +0100
John Fields wrote:
"J.A. Legris" 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.
There is a wealth of top-class information that refutes the IPCC / Gore /
di Caprio case.
All you have to do is look for it.
And whilst we're on the subject, just why the F*** should anyone listen to
an idiot like di Caprio ? At least the anti-AGW lobby are mainly
scientists, mathematicians or others working in the energy sector not damn
ACTORS !
Graahm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More Gore
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: More Gore
- From: Richard Henry
- Re: More Gore
- References:
- More Gore
- From: Bob Eld
- Re: More Gore
- From: Eeyore
- Re: More Gore
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: More Gore
- From: John Fields
- Re: More Gore
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: More Gore
- From: J.A. Legris
- Re: More Gore
- From: John Fields
- More Gore
- Prev by Date: Re: Smith Chart Amusements
- Next by Date: Re: More Gore
- Previous by thread: Re: More Gore
- Next by thread: Re: More Gore
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading