<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Gadi Evron <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ge@linuxbox.org">ge@linuxbox.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
wow, just... wow. Even if this is real it is a master-piece of how to discredit, write fake and unsubstantiated:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming" target="_blank">http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Not all that surprising - in fact, it's an old story. As far as consensus goes, wasn't that proven a lie as soon as they described the process of putting together the IPCC report (small groups of political appointees writing whole, unreviewed sections)? Wasn't the reports credibility further questioned by their approval of the proven "hockey stick" lie?<br>
<br>There's a couple of good anti-global warming documentaries out. One has several of the scientists listed on the report. At least one of those scientist successfully sued to have his name removed from the report. If you compare the quality of substantive arguments between Al Gore's mocumentary and these, I can't help but believe you'll be much more impressed with the anti-warming side.<br>
<br>The CO2 leading/following argument, for instance, has been around for a VERY long time - before any of this hysteria even - and in my mind puts the nail in the coffin of the man-made-global-warming conspiracy.<br><br>
Besides, shouldn't you always start such discussions by questioning the "accepted belief"? And shouldn't one of your first queries be, "who's going to benefit monetarily by this?" Al Gore in cahoots with at least one carbon tax credit plan... <br>
</div></div><br>See you in the next little ice age (which is where we're much more likely to be headed)!<br>