--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > > > If you should by any chance be interested in > > > > actually informing yourself about the significance > > > > of Mars warming vis-a-vis warming here on earth, > > > > check this out: > > > > > > > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 > > > > > > Judy's response is typical of global warming alarmists: > > > instead of being HAPPY about hearing news that contradicts > > > man-made global warming > > > > Except that the Mars warming news does *not* > > contradict man-made global warming. Read the > > post at the link, Shemp. > > ...which isn't the point. > > Even assuming, as you say, that the Mars warming news doesn't > contradict man-made global warming, why not at least be > cautiously optimistic that it COULD be right?
Because it *isn't* right. They're two different phenomena, as you'll see if you read the URL. The notion that they're the same is factually in error. Not even "cautious optimism" is called for. It's apples and kiwi fruit. > Why hit the Google search button > so quickly to find a story that would refute it? Because I already knew it was nonsense, Shemp, from what I'd read previously, including the post for which I gave the URL. And why, pray tell, > aren't you hitting the Google search button to find an article > that AGREES with it instead? Because any such article would be in error. This isn't a matter of opinion, Shemp, it's a matter of fact. Read the URL. > And why is your response virtually identical EVERY SINGLE TIME > an opposing viewpoint to man-made global warming appears on this > forum? You think I should accept viewpoints that are, from everything I've read and heard, simply incorrect?? > You should be HAPPY that someone has given you good news It's not "good news." It's irrelevant news. Read the URL. > and, gee, at > least ONCE, seek out other evidence that it is right!!! No, I already have the evidence that it's *not* right. Read the URL, Shemp. > You're like a cancer patient who, upon hearing that he's got three > months to live, actively seeks out confirmation that this is a > correct diagnosis. "Three months to live" isn't a diagnosis, it's a prediction based on statistics. But even correcting your phrasing to "upon hearing that he has cancer," the analogy is bogus. Here's the real analogy: A person who receives a cancer diagnosis actively seeks out confirmation that it's a correct diagnosis rather than taking hope from the fact that his brother was diagnosed with diabetes. (Also, of course, while opinion plays a role in some cancer diagnoses, it doesn't at all in others.) Shemp, just read the material at the URL, then get back to me, OK? I think you'll see what I'm talking about. At this point, you don't have a clue.
