Dear everyone,
I used to participate in a listserve called
climatechangedebate.org. It had a LOT of
warming-skeptics on it, some who were just rabid
shills for the coal industry, others who were
thoughtful and well-informed. There were a many
discussions I couldn't follow well because of their
>
>You guys, really - you postulate this massive worldwide conspiracy
>with a cast of literally millions, which would require an incredibly
>powerful and effective organisation to implement it, for which you
>offer an utterly limp damp squib such as this. Who's the other usual
>suspect? Resear
I thought that proving a theory, one way or the other made it a fact.
Many theories are considered mainstream fact, but wanting proof for
something not proven, for an argument, is like cutting on both sides of
a tree, it only makes sense if it being held from the top. If that
statement doesn
gt;
To: Biofuel List
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 3:07 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Global warming b.s.
> >> Today,
> >> using much of the same data,
>
> >No way. Even where the same climate records are used, new ways
of
> >crunching them and of correlating them with each
You keep coming back with this stuff, eh, Marc? You get debunked, you
wait a few months and then try it again as if it never happened. Will
you be telling us again soon that nukes are good for you too?
> >> Today,
> >> using much of the same data,
>
> >No way. Even where the same climate record
>> Today,
>> using much of the same data,
>No way. Even where the same climate records are used, new ways of
>crunching them and of correlating them with each other, with other
>evidence and with huge amounts of new data have produced new and much
>improved information from the old records. An
