> JimD wrote:
> My position (often stated) is that it makes good sense either way.
>
I believe this was Shermer's point as well. It's like standing up in
front of the targets on a firing range and arguing about who's firing
the bullets.
The Earth is warming, for whatever reason, and that's going
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:35 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: global warning dissenters
>
> You have nicely summed up the entire problem with the global warming
> argument. We have n
You have nicely summed up the entire problem with the global warming
argument. We have no idea what the delta is between natural warming and
human-induced warming. We have limited observational data over a very
limited period of time, but from that information people are drawing very
large conclusi
You know,
there is a theory that the world would have continued warming
naturally to a point where life on earth would have been untenable if
it was not for the 'un'-natural cooling that took place during the Ice
Age as a result of what would appear to be meteor impacts.
The school of thought is
> RoMunn wrote:
> http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
>
Any reasonable dissent on Global Warming ended with Michael Shermer's flip:
The Flipping Point: How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming
has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive
flip
By Michae
I have to say that any article that starts with this sentence turns my
bs meter to high:
"You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in
a free society."
(The same trigger would be caused by "...often hear the right", or
"...conservatives", or "...blacks")
When did it beco
