Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
alt.global-warming
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
Rich  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 12 Aug 2008, 03:02
Newsgroups: uk.politics.environment, sci.environment, alt.global-warming
From: Rich <some...@someplace.not>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:02:47 -0700
Local: Tues 12 Aug 2008 03:02
Subject: Re: Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Lloyd wrote:
> 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
>>> takes place
>>> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189
>> Aren't they the ones demanding Nuremberg-sytle trials for dem 'ebil
>> deniers? You'd probably support that Fran.

>>> You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgor look at the work
>>> of Joseph Romm
>> And realclimate is the very definition of a vested interest.

>> Got any unbiased sources?

> Just National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, American Geophysical
> Union, American Physics Society, NASA, NOAA, EPA...

Are they unbiased? Or do they simply echo biased sources?

If you claim that they have no vested interest in AGW, feel
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
to ask you the basis for your beliefs. You are the source.

Cheers,

Rich

>> Cheers,

>> Rich

>>> Fran


    Reply to author    Forward  
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.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google