--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:22 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 60+ German Scientists dissent over global > warming > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/07/morano-climate-depot-joke/ is > a > > commentary on your "source". > > > > ...and how, pray tell, does your link counter what the German scientists > say? There is NOTHING there to counter it...it doesn't even mention it. > > And I ask again: why aren't you eagerly embracing claims that global warming > is bogus? Aren't you at all encouraged that the alarmism is wrong and > millions aren't going to die? > > Why are you so unhappy, Rick, at ANY news that counters the claims of > catastrophe for mankind? > Because as far as I can tell, from a layman's perspective,
This is only too true... > the evidence for > global warming/climate change is compelling, the vast majority of legitimate > climatologists Why do you keep repeating this? Just cause you repeat the same line over and over doesn't make it true. Where is this vast majority? Evidence, please. > concur that the threat is real and dire, and those with whom > you choose to align yourself are of the same mindset as those who denied > that cigarettes cause cancer or those who are currently fighting health care > reform. Actually, it's the other way around. Those that claimed that cigarettes caused cancer relied on actual cause and effect research; your alarmists don't. > In other words, they don't give a damn what happens to people, > individually or collectively, short-term or long, as long as it doesn't > impact their bottom line. Oh, you mean like Al Gore whose $100 million fortune is directly tied to global warming alarmism continuing to be accepted? Or the scientists that get grants (about $75 billion so far from the federal government) that get this windfall as long as global warming alarmism continues? > And they're always going to find a certain subset > of the population, in which you are included, who is susceptible to their > propaganda. > Which side, really, is known for propaganda and which side is known for thinking for themselves?
