On 02/11/2010 02:34 PM, Ross Sauer -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 RS> "Ed Hulett -> Ross Sauer"  wrote in
 RS> news:20206$MATZDOBRE{at}JamNNTPd:

 RS>>> Read this, dumbfuck.

 RS>>> Unless you're scared shitless of guys in white coats...

 RS>>> http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html

 EH>> There is no "consensus" that "global
warming" is anthropogenic in
 EH>> nature. In fact, the global climate is dynamic in nature and is always
 EH>> changing. The tiny amount of human caused "greenhouse
gases" is not
 EH>> enough to effect global climate change.

 RS> There's no consensus on gravity either.
 RS> (As to what causes it.)

Is that so? Tell us all about it, Mr Science. What does that have to do
with so-called global warming?

Apparently you didn't read the article you linked to because it talks about
a "consensus of scientific knowledge."

 EH>> The 2007 Nobel prize winning IPCC report was based on guesses and
 EH>> "scientific" data that was NOT peer reviewed. Also,
much of the data
 EH>> used was cherry-picked just to support a preconceived conclusion. Data
 EH>> from Chinese weather stations didn't take into account of the many
 EH>> stations that had been moved to other areas or those that were
 EH>> originally in rural areas that ended up being swallowed up by nearby
 EH>> cities where heat-island effect would skew the resulting data.

 RS> They goofed. Unlike your gurus, who *NEVER* even say "Oops!"

"Goofed?" They manipulated data to fit their agenda.

 EH>> There are thousands of weather stations across Canada and only a
 EH>> handful were used to support the conclusion that temperatures were
 EH>> rising.

 EH>> Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax that is quickly being shown for
 EH>> what it is and only those who want to believe are still claiming it is
 EH>> real.

 EH>> If AGW was real, its proponents wouldn't have to lie about and make up
 EH>> data to support their claims. They wouldn't have to try to shut down
 EH>> the debate by demonizing those who do not believe their Chicken Little
 EH>> act.

 EH>> It's rather telling when a website that calls itself the Skeptic
 EH>> Dictionary refuses to be skeptical about claims that just have not
 EH>> been proven or have been proven to be lies.

 RS> Fine, write to them, (They do accept e-mails) and show them that they
 RS> are wrong.

I have no reason to since I'm not the one who used them as a source.

 RS> Oh you won't, simply because you're a cult-worshipping science-hating
 RS> asshole.

Those knickers of yours are really knotted up, aren't they.

 RS> Or just simply a moron.

You shouldn't throw around the term "moron" too much before you
find out what it means.

Ed

-- 
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer

Blogs: http://edsramblings.wordpress.com  | Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/ed.hulett
http://woodcarvingnsuch.wordpress.com     | Twitter: http://twitter.com/yaesu
http://edsscrollsawbits.blogspot.com

Linux User# 416016
Linux Machine# 379711

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100211 Shred