Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Call me lazy, call me Shirley……..but just don’t call me. In fact “iggy” me if you want….I’ll be OK with it.



Actually following the chronology of the matter, you want to debate it. I did not respond to your invitation because I skipped it. Now that I see it offered, I’ll pass based largely upon my belief that it would be a gigantic waste of time. Fastidious name calling? Mud slinging?

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

My initial statement here has not only been supported but my initial joke was quite on target.

If there were not so many scientists that agree with the maverick weatherman, maybe that knee jerk reply would come across as less ignorant. In fact several comments here would come across as almost intelligent if they took into account the fact that there is much scientific debate about the theory of Man Made Global Warming. It is always interesting watching the acolytes of MMGW mummer about the heretics and their sacrilegious "questions" about church dogma.

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Originally Posted by jfuh

The typical play when delt with matter's you can't handle. I challenged you for actual context but you prefer to respond with sarcasms. Yes I've supplied links and if you were intellectually honest you would admit so. Which report provided which study provided? Have you provided anything at all? Nothing. gill gave 2 papers neither of which even commented on the matter but stating of other feed backs and effects to global temperatures.


[color=black]

Not at all. The theory of evolution is a fact do you think that intelligent design constitutes a credible objection to the theory of evolution? It's the same way that I view the objections that have been posted here towards the theory of global warming.