that should be.. "I'm not specifically speaking to global warming"
makes a little more sense with the right conditional Scott Stewart wrote: > I'm specifically speaking to global warming, I'm speaking to pollution > in general, you can't tell me that you believe that the crap that we > pump into the atmosphere is harmless. > > Robert Munn wrote: > >> We don't know it. GW is all a bunch of hokey pseudo-science that ignores a >> fundamental reality- that our climate is in a constant state of flux from >> outside forces. >> >> Look at Michael's explanation about GW. Do you see anything in there that >> says, "and if the Sun provides less/more energy to the Earth, something >> different happens." No, you don't, because GW science ignores outside >> factors, making everything about it scientifically invalid. >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Scott wrote: >> >> >> >>> I think this whole thing goes back to the issue of erring on the side of >>> caution... >>> >>> If we know that something is very unhealthy for us and anything else >>> living on the planet (IE: greenhouse emissions, toxic waste, general >>> pollution) >>> shouldn't we take steps to lessen it's impact or not introduce it into >>> the environment at all? >>> >>> It's a pretty simple formula, isn't it? >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283000 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
