Newsgroups: uk.politics.environment, alt.global-warming
From: Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues 12 Aug 2008 19:05
Subject: Re: Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory
On Aug 11, 10:02 pm, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote: Oh give us a break. Either you're a 10-year old or you're a kook. > > On Aug 11, 10:45 am, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote: > >> Fran wrote: > >> [...] > >>> Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols > >>> You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgorlook at the work > >> Got any unbiased sources? > > Just National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, American Geophysical > Are they unbiased? Or do they simply echo biased sources? > If you claim that they have no vested interest in AGW, feel If you have half a brain, feel free to show it. > free to show it. > > And we know you don't have any unbiased sources. > You believe lots of things Lloyd. But I don't need sources > Cheers, > Rich > >> Cheers, > >> Rich > >>> Fran You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||