> That might temporarily alter it but not "change the climate."
Silly me, I thought "alter" and "change" meant the same thing. > And yet a bunch of political delegates just wrote a summary claiming > that scientists are 90% sure. And what's your point exactly? The point I am making is that it is pointless to sit around and demand 100% sureity because that's scientifically impossible to achieve. > Don't forget the ones that speak out > are personally attacked and/or will never get funding. That's a scary way > to do science. How about some proof of *that*? There are enough companies with a vested interest in disproving global warming that it is certainly unlikely that someone taking that stance will "never get funding". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:227087 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
