Charlie Bell wrote: > >> It's all down to which data you pick to base the claim on, and which >> you >> ignore (and both sides of the AGW debate are doing both every day). > > There's only one side... well, one that's actually true. > This is not really accurate, is it? Depending on how we _define_ Global Warming, we may come up with two definitions of GW, and one might be true and the other false.
Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
