From:
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:08:15 GMT

You don't like them because they arte against your agenda, which is more
government control.

So that's my 'agenda'? LOL! You are a buffoon.

Nothing would please me more than to have your position be correct. We
wouldn't have to do anything. We could pump as much **** into the air
as we wanted to, with no repurcussions.

So let me ask you: let's assume your position: what if all the hundreds
of scientists who think GW with a man-made component is going on are
wrong? We reduce some emissions, get air slightly cleaner, and what?
Let's assume your position is wrong, and we do nothing. We possibly go
into runaway temperature increases, and life on earth (such as it is at
that point) sucks. So are you being rational? I sure don't think so.
Let's see what other fabrications you're concocting.

You should read this article, which talks about your Messiah Lindzen:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...earth.science/

"[Lindzen] is taken seriously because he's capable of excellent
science," Sommerville said. "[But] most of the scientific community
thinks he's mistaken... People are given a fair hearing and then we
move on..." "...When you go to your doctor, and she says you're due for
a heart attack, you don't turn around and say medicine is imperfect
even if she can't predict the date of your heart attack," Sommerville
said. "You take it seriously. I think climate science is in that
position now."

Let's look at your Duke 'report' for fabrications. You quote this:

"Durham, N.C. -- At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured
during
the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than
factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by

various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."

But you fail to mention this, WHICH IS IN THE SAME REPORT:

"However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the
basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of
carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases."

And this:

"This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases
contribute to global warming, they stressed. "Those gases would still
give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said."

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

Your article from reason ends thus:

"So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional
wisdom-or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty
of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and
the controversy. "

This is EXACTLY what realclimate.com said about junkscience, by the
way: taking an opinion piece and offering it as 'proof' that some
scientific point is now made.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml

Let's look at the homepage of another site you mention as a source for
your point, breakfornews.com

"Wag, Wag, Wag. The tail wags the dog. It's all a movie, with players
and a script. Deranged Dictator Bush. Outraged U.N. Al-Qaida savages
who behead.
And you, being played for a sucker. "News" is scripted. 9/11 was
scripted. You live in a Wag the Dog movie directed by the G8 New Word
Order."

http://www.breakfornews.com/

Do you seriously read (and believe) this crap? LOL!

You have no morals. You are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do not
understand how science
works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.

Projection is an ugly thing.

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

No, You accuse me of what you do.

What do I do, other than show how you snip the quotes (never failing to
disregard anything that might show that you're wrong) (see above), show
how you quote conspiracy theory websites like breakfornews, quote other
dubious sources like junkscience, quote sources funded primarily by
conservative groups and industries that might have a vested interest as
though they're not biased, and so on.

Nob, you are without a doubt the most intellectually dishonest person
that I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.

You are either stupid, or you are being intentionally dishonest. Which
one is it? Or is it both?