"Did I mention the temperatures have been revised and GW might not even exist?"
And the key word in your statement is 'might'. You lambaste us for advocating reasonable action because many of us believe that it 'might' exist by backing it up with some saying "ok it 'might' not." Sam, many of us understand that something that 'might' exist 'might not' exist. But many of us prefer actions be taken assuming it 'might' exist because the consequence 'might' be quite dramatic. Especially since these actions tend have other demonstratable benefits even if they 'might' not affect global warming. And is the point that Europe may abandon Kyoto in favor of a different CO2 plan. That is a completely separate and unrelated argument. That is an argument for different courses of action and which may or may not be more effective. And if one is arguing that plan B is more effective then plan A, doesn't that imply that one agrees that a plan is required? If no plan is required because the condition 'might' not exist why argue that plan B is better? Unless, of course, because plan B is not a real plan anyway. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder, plug-ins for Eclipse and Dreamweaver updates. http;//www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5adobecf8%5Fbeta Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:239956 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
