What puzzles me is why anyone would object to the reduction of greenhouse glasses whether global warming exists or not. I think carbon offsets, reduction of pollution, conversation of petroleum, alternative energy, etc. can only be good for us in the long term. Who benefits from the destruction of the ozone layer other than the makers of sunscreen?
As for the science, NOAA is pretty clear that they think global warming exists. Why would we believe them about all the other weather phenomena and not global warming? On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's the asinine nature of both sides of this debate: each side is > saying there's 100% accurate scientific that GW is or isn't happening > despite the fact that we all know that's simply not technically > possible. > > The assertion that the climate acts on random cycles for no reason is > as ridiculous as saying there's global warming. In both cases we > simply don't know. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:262980 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
