On Jul 1, 2009, at 4:08 PM, shempmcgurk 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?
I don't know why I give that impression, Sal.
Because you keep posting anti GW stuff and
then challenging others to refute it.
I long ago gave up any hope that people would agree with me on this
or that I could change minds!
So you're posting article after article
for your own amusement? Okey, dokey...
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?
Virtually everyone that posts here on FFL are expressing a point of
view. I express mine on GW. I'm not sure why you feel that this is
a search for consensus and validation of my opinion more than any
other person's posting.
Because you keep bringing up the same points,
over and over. And no, you're not the only one
who does that but, FWIW, I find yours to be one of the
more interesting cases. And you are one of the
most persistent.
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.
Global warming policy has, is, and will continue to kill
people...all unnecessariy. My postings on this subject is a way for
me to vent my frustration at the killing.
To each his or her own, but wouldn't trying to change actual
policy in some concrete way be more productive and
less frustrating?
Sal
