Re: OT - Who you going to believe...........


"JD" <hamguy1956@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ua0it4tkt72udikns8rq4at7ppuj29u0cu@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:04:18 -0600, "Max" <thesameoldme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I'm contesting the use of spurious
information in support of either side.


Examples of 'spurious information' by the GW non-believers?
--
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you are built upside down!

$$$$$$$$$%%
Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!

Oops. I thought you were referring to GW Bush.
Any time information concerning GW is presented with absolute certainty, as the Brash Lamebrain was wont to do, it can be considered "spurious".
As I've said, I'm convinced that there exists far too little accurate scientific information to be certain about what the true causes of climate change are. Computer modeling can only be as reliable as the input and any scientist with any bias at all can screw up the result.
I've not yet seen any speculation about the effect that the changing concentration and varying depth of the earth's magma has on GW.
Who knows?

Max

.

Loading