In article .com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:34 pm, Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:19 pm, Telamon

wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate
change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls
under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is
deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous.
Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists.
None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no
more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate
change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

There is conclusive
evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

- You can choose to ignore what science says,
- but you cannot claim that scientific opinion
- says something other than what it does.
- Humans are causing the majority of recent warming.
- That is the state of current best scientific knowledge.
- This is not opinion. It is documented fact.

RA - DUH ! - Scientific 'Opinion(s)' is NOT
Indisputable Incontrivertable Scientific Fact [.]

Documenting a Group of Like 'Opinions'
Does Not Make These 'Opinions' Facts.

and thems is the facts ~ rhf
.


Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
after the application of REASON.

What, in the absence of absolute proof, would you use to establish
what's true? Reading tea leaves? Using divining rods?
Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based on
evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact. I don't know what you're
using, but it's inferior.

Try to understand your place in this. You are being used. Do you
understand that you are being used by socialists to promote their agenda?

Look carefully at who is making these assertions. Look at the evidence
they purport supports their position. Notice they are not making their
case "scientifically" but instead make assumptions " leaps of faith
actually" and expect you to "believe" these assertions. Again, there is
no Proof according to logical, scientific method that "proves" man is
even making a significant contribution to climate change.

Look at the evidence they do not provide that man is "responsible."

Look at past climate change when man made CO2 was not a factor.

Look at what is happening currently on planets in the rest of the solar
system where man is not a factor.

Think about these subjects and don't parrot.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California