^ ^ ^ that's fairly specious logic, mikeluke. We might have been measuring for a short while, but we can use various techniques to tell what the temperature was ages ago.
^ agreed, muttley.
Wikipedia should not be your source.
lol, so instead i should make my sources ridiculously biased, conspiracy theory sites?
I check wikipedia quite a lot, for science stuff. Most (if not all) of the stuff I see is accurate.
Here's a hint- if you live in a glass house you probably shouldn't throw stones. You've done it already a couple of times in this thread, to me, and I don't appreciate it. Just because I'm not willing to stoop to your level of ad hominem upon ad hominem doesn't mean you have a better point. If anything, it means you don't have a point because you're hoping that if you throw enough mud, that some of it will stick, and are also hoping that it will act as a smokescreen against the stuff you and the guys you support are doing, which is as bad if not far worse.
again, al gore isn't one of the scientists. There's a difference, as i keep saying but no-one seems to be acknowledging, between people doing it for their own gain (politicians, wacko environmentalists, etc.), and the scientists. Plus as philly said, as a vice president he's hardly going to be going on welfare. Look how much tony blair makes from lectures etc., and he doesn't go near any of the green stuff. I wager he makes a lot more than al gore.
Plus you still haven't answered my point about the world economy. What al gore is making is small fry compared to what the big companies, and governments (from taxes) are making if the status quo remains.
i'm not particularly fond of bono or al gore, fwiw. I agree that al gore is a hypocrite, as is bono. But just because you have some hypocrites jumping on the bandwagon doesn't mean that the research is wrong. I imagine the climate change scientists wish bono and gore would eff off, as they're giving climate change a bad name.
