>Hmmm...
>
>"Did you notice how I included
>both sides of the political
>spectrum 440?"
>
>Indeed your pragmatism is exceptional.
>
>"My argument isn't really about climate
>change or mans roll in
>it but rather some peoples
>unwillingness to admit there is
>way too much money and
>power at stake on both
>sides to get the straight
>skinny and it being used
>to forward political ideologies."
>
>While that sounds like a balanced
>statement, in this context it
>is disingenuous and serves as
>the "passive".
>
>And here is the "aggressive"
>
>"No 440, defending liberal progressive ideology
>and it's corrupt members til
>the bitter end makes YOU
>a liberal."
>
>You contradict yourself, you purposely frame
>the argument as if there
>is no consensus in the
>scientific community. This is not
>a 60/40 or even an
>80/20 opinion from the scientific
>community, but a 97% consensus.
>
>
>"Both sides", 3% is not a
>side, it's a minority opinion.
>
>
>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
>
>Dismissing Exxon's studies from 40 years
>ago, a time prior to
>the media's knowledge, prior to
>lobbying, is deny the fact
>that one the world's largest
>producers Exxon predicted a 3-4
>change in global temperatures within
>decades.
>
>Did the Exxon scientists back in
>1977 just take a lucky
>guess?
>
>Tog is simply supporting the consensus,
>the other 97 people in
>a room of 100.
Forthewall are you basing the 97% on the Zimmerman and Doran Poll?