On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Richard M wrote:
--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine
<salsunsh...@...>
wrote:
On Jul 1, 2009, at 2:08 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: >
Thanks for the excellent graph, Vaj. > >
There's probably nothing better than this graph to
demonstrate
that
there is zero connection between co2 emissions and global
warming
(note paticularly pre-1940). >
shemp, one thing I don't understand... > OK, we all get that
you don't think GW > is a reality (or at least that's what you
keep implying, ad nauseum). But why > is it so important to
you that others, > particularly others here, agree with you? >
If you're secure in your own knowledge, > and that's good
enough for you, why do > you constantly seem to need a group >
consensus and validation of your opinion? >
I am really interested in knowing, because > to me, at least,
the constant attempts > at validation and trying to prove
others > "wrong" are somewhat fascinating. >
Sal
Well, for my part...
One of the things that I guess interests most people is *why do
we believe in stuff*? And *why do we get to believe in it so
vehemently*?
For example we have folks here who have been TBs and now "see
the light" (but now in some cases are just as blinkered as they
were previously as to why others can't NOT see the light after
their Damascene conversion out of TB).
I think we Schemp types feel that this phenomenon of "TB" is
manifesting in the global warming/climate change hysteria (as
we would describe it). And it's darn fascinating IMO.
OK, Richard, if that were happening I would agree
it would be interesting. But as far as I can see the
one who keeps bringing it up and hammering home
his views over and over is shemp. Have I missed
something?
For my part I am prepared to believe there *might* be something
in the global warming conjecture. Though I think I would bet
against it. But that's not the point really. What gets my
attention is the crushing certainty and blinkered mind-set of
the AGW TBs!
Sal
