Nick Palmer wrote:
Philip Winestone replied to me privately and, amid his assertions of
his own objectivity, he wrote
<<You obviously didn't read the article in yesterday's National Post,
where the writer wrote (from a scientific standpoint) that
No, I didn't. What would be the point? Neither do I make any attempt
to listen to the speakers on coast to coast AM radio saying similar
things (that Thomas Malloy keeps bringing to our attention). Your
apparent belief in the
The C to C producers put on both sides of the controversy. IMHO the
increased solar irradiance is one of two great factors, the other being
increased sub sea volcanoes.
<< Whatever the ideas/arguments that you have bought wholesale from
the, frankly evil (because of their effect), climate change deniers I
will show you where they are either a) lies b) logically wrong c)
crude rhetoric designed to fool people so they defer to the selfish
special interest groups (i.e, big Oil/Coal) who have been throwing
money at groups to generate this poisonous rubbish for decades) or d)
all three. Bring on whatever you have got - I will try to demolish it>>
Big oil and coal are behind increased solar irradiance and volcanoes? I
wonder whom they paid to make that happen?
Finally, in a reply to John Berry you wrote:-
<< Don't make the unjustified assumption that I "believe" anyone,
including myself>> People who argue like you do often come out with
this defense after their rhetoric has been challenged - I imagine they
believe it makes
Most importantly don't over look what you can do about anthropogenic
climate change if it is happening, A: not a damn thing!
--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! --
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
