On May 8, 7:36=A0am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
com> wrote:
> <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:9ec6f396-1170-42f2-a916-ad2beb90dfe0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > Tom, every time you come up with some random
> > argument, you say stuff about "actual records and
> > papers" and then are hard pressed to come up
> > with references.
>
> Well you'll either have to just get used to that or find your own
> references. I'm simply not going to provide them for you to simply
poo-poo=
> without any basis as you did CO2Science. In short - you don't like it?
Don=
't
> read it.
Is that the "500 scientists" one, where names and professional
reputations were stolen from their rightful owners in service of phony
endorsement?
Damn, how many on the list don't even know their names are being
misused (to put it nicely)?
That had to break some short list of laws somehow. Besides being
grounds for a (stupid, profitable only for the lawyers) hefty lawsuit.
This looks like another neocon con job. That's not "pooh-poohing".
That's calling a crook a crook. --D-y
|
