Agreed.

Global warming is pseudo-science. It reminds me of some of the other
pseudo-science schemes,
like reading bumps on the head to determine tendency toward criminal
behaviour.

Like a bad case of indigestion, it will pass into memory and we'll all
laugh about it one day.

--Bob

Russell McMahon wrote:

>Entries in [] are to assist in rebuttals as required.  :-)
>
>UK Royal Society.
>Sure to annoy the nay-sayers :-)
>
>
>http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/search/websearch.cfm?mainpage=/events/discussion_meetings/reps/acc.htm
>
>
>UMO / UNEP
>Intergovernmental panel on climate change
>IPCC 3rd assement report - Climate Change 2001
>Sure to have the nay sayers foaming at the mouth, rolling in the aisles and
>slashing themselves with blunt PLCCs.
>[2001 - MUST be out of date. Must be bad science. What did they know way
>back then anyway .... ]
>[IPCC - pack of UN lackeys, vested intertest. PC. Greens. Commos.... mumble
>...]
>
>        http://www.ipcc.ch/
>
>
>    Full report (pdf)    http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg2SPMfinal.pdf
>
>    Summary for policy makers - "The Scientific basis"   . Lots and lots of
>pretty graphs :-)
>    Actually very interesting
>
>            http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
>
>
>Really really really bad pro GW site just to allow people to point to how
>bad these GW people are
>(OK - its for kids - but balance is a really really good idea regardless -
>or even especially so)
>
>        http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/global_warming_primer.htm
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>
>
>
>


--
Note: Attachments must be sent to
attach@engineer.cotse.net, and
MAY delay replies to this message

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body