Charlie Bell wrote: > On 21/02/2008, at 8:26 PM, Russell Chapman 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. > > But any time there is an argument there are two sides. One may be hopelessly naive/blind/misled whatever, but there are still two sides, and with AGW, BOTH sides are cherry picking data. It doesn't matter what's true - if the main advisers to our PM are telling us that sea levels will rise by 100m this century - that's a metre per year!, and a report is released today that says it's basically too late for Australia, then they are being just as stupid as the ones who think we can go on pumping noxious gases into our atmosphere (and burning fossil fuels) at the rate we are without destroying the Earth as we know it.
I still maintain that there are two "camps" for want of a better word, who are ignoring actual data, and spouting specific examples, in order to advance their own agenda. There are two sides in this argument, and neither of them are using "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Want to buy my waterfront property? Maru Russell C. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
