"dechucka" wrote in message
news:46c295fb$0$22613$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> wrote in message
> news:iywwi.1220$4w7.303@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "dechucka" wrote in message
>> news:46c199a6$0$22599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Whata Fool" wrote in message
>>> news:b2m3c3pscjdokng81s1e7v453m9b6i8s1n@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:54:57 +1000, "dechucka"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>what has Al Gore got to do with the paper under discussion being
>>>>>unscientific and non interesting?
>>>>
>>>> The paper would never have been written if it were not for
>>>> the nonsensical and greatly exaggerated claims by Al.
>>>
>>> pity they didn't do a better job
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Don't feel bad, a lot of very capable people fell for it,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Al is a few hundred million better off, but that's ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be straying from the subject
>>>>
>>>> You should read the paper again, it claims CO2 does little
>>>> global warming, helping millions shake off the fear of horrible things
>>>> to come.
>>>
>>> it claims a lot of things which it doesn't back up with science. To me
>>> the unscientific nature of the paper means it is not interesting
>>
>> This paper is more scientific than anthing you AGWcultist have produced
>> in 20 years and with over 50 billion in resources. The fact is you have
>> no alternative. You have nothing that provides a scientific basis for
>> your delusional belief that CO2 can/will increase atmospheric
>> temperatures.
>
>
> I do not take a position one way or the other. I am interested in good
> science to show a point. The OP paper was crap
You've demonstrated an unwillingness to address content. Science involves
addressing content.
|