Re: Global warming increases chance of wild weather BULLSHIT!!!

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
   Tazmanian Devil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh really? Then care to explain just WHY it says that there is a "flaw
>in the process that is used to judge Global Warming that if proven
>would cut the "evidence" of same by half"

What it says is:

"Accumulating methane is thought to prevent heat escaping from Earth into 
space, like the thickening blanket of carbon dioxide. It probably accounts for 
roughly 20% of the warming effects of greenhouse gases, compared with the 
40-50% attributed to carbon dioxide."

Now, if you're quoting this article, are you conceding that CO2 is causing at 
least most of the current warming?



>
>Sounds like cooking the books to me and anyone else with any brain
>cells. So if anyone is a liar or scientifically illiterate, it is
>clearly the man you see in the bathroom mirror every morning
>
>You global warming nutcases were captured screwing with the numbers
>and it was posted world wide. Spin it anyway you want to try, but this
>proves that you GW nutcases are nothing more then liars.
>
>
>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:10:52 -0700, John Starrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Tazmanian Devil wrote:
>>> nature magazine has printed a very nice story proving that you lying
>>> global warming nutcases have "cooked the books" and have doubled your
>>> "facts" to make everything look worse then it is.
>>> http://www.nature.com
>>> 
>>> In short, you have no data to back you up as if you have to "cook the
>>> books" to get what you want, then how can we believe anything you say
>>> is a fact in this case?!
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>http://www.nature.com/nsu/031124/031124-10.html
>>
>>
>>That's not what the article says at all. You are a liar, or you are 
>>scientifically illiterate.
>>
>>John Starrett
>
>