Wharfster, I acknowledge you are the true spokesman for the case of AGW. I know that I have seen comments from you with attributions substantiated at least 100 times on the Environmentalist thread. I quit reading that thread because it began to resemble a broken record.
I also read posts (another 100) from others (who are now posting on this thread) refuting your claim substantiating the case AGAINST AGW.
It's obvious to me and, I am sure, others on this thread will agree, that minds are not going to be changed.
So, why not stop (both POVs) the repetition?
Could it be, both sides have valid points, and perhaps this AGW "Balls To The Walls" effort to make this issue "Settled Science", could be moderated just a tiny bit?
After all, most folks would agree that Global Warming exists. It's just the degree to which it exists, that seems to be in question.
Please, Wharfie, (with some of that silly stuff sprinkled on it), give it a break.
And please, you others who feel it necessary to counter post to Wharf's POV, do the same.
This thread could be a much better place if there were fewer of the TIRED old talking points aired, over and over.
End Of RANT
P.s. I love you both, Wharfie & Brumar. ;>) |
