Al set to pick up his Nobel Prize

[Veritas]

I was just rebutting your assertion that he was "hiding" links.

Well, he did not identify his source and the links in his unattributed copy, unlike those in the original, did not work.

 

[delldude]

Well, he did not identify his source and the links in his unattributed copy, unlike those in the original, did not work.

So sorry to cause you so much worry to your little Tush......

Ok........ok...heres my source:

 

[delldude]

Squirming around a bit when you can't discount some 400 eminent scientists bold assertion

that GW has been totally blown out of proportion there Truth Fairy?

Well, he did not identify his source and the links in his unattributed copy, unlike those in the original, did not work.

Well hell's bell's there Truth Fairy....I provided the link to the story and all the links and sources are

there for all to see....do you have to be spoon fed 'er what?

(I apologize if I have for some reason violated Ruford B.Brambley's posting rules of etiquette.)

 

[Veritas]

Squirming around a bit when you can't discount some 400 eminent scientists bold assertion

If you cannot argue against the overwhelming consensus in published peer review studies, simply assemble a list of the usual suspects, oops, skeptics. Than, add the name of anyone who has ever written anything critical of AGW, whether they have any economic conflict of interest or not. For a good measure, add a scattering of random so called experts, regardless of whether their fields have any relevance to climatology.

Finally, publish the view of one minority senator in a blog authored by a fringe right wing ghostwriter and masquerade it as the official United States Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee Blog.

Pathetic.

 

[delldude]

Just because it does not fit into your little world vision of GW?

You are the one looking pathetic now, Truth Fairy.

Its been an agenda from the start and now all are starting to see it for what it truly is.

If you cannot argue against the overwhelming consensus in published peer review studies, simply assemble a list of the usual suspects, oops, skeptics. Than, add the name of anyone who has ever written anything critical of AGW, whether they have any economic conflict of interest or not.

Like I said to you before....any view other than yours is not valid.You prove your idiosyncrasy

once again for all too see.

Nyaah nyah I beat you.

 

[delldude]

Veritas:

I'd give all to be the mirror in your bathroom......