Text 21503, 75 rader
Skriven 2015-03-12 08:41:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DALE SHIPP
Ärende: Re: Lofaso Troll
========================
On 03-11-15, DALE SHIPP said to TIM RICHARDSON:

-=> On 03-11-15  11:04,  Tim Richardson <=-
-=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Lofaso Troll <=-


TR> I ask a couple of easy questions...and the whole echo comes unglued!


DS>You keep asking the same sort of questions which are all of the "have
DS>you stopped beating your wife" type.


No they weren't. They were just easy, straight-forward questions that the
`warmist' crowd should have had sensible, believeable answers to.


DS>To give any answer to them is to admit that the implied assumption is true.


There is no `assumption' involved. The information behind each question
is out there. And a read of some of the e-mails that came out of East
Anglia University...where Phil Jones and a few others openly discuss
such things cannot be ignored.


Notice that `hockey stick' graph disappeared faster than Hillary Clinton's
Whitewater billing records?


DS>And you *do* attack anyone who does not go along with your conspiracy
DS>theory retoric.


I haven't *attacked* anyone on this subject. I haven't called anyone any
low names...or cursed at anyone...or deliberately, openly, insulted
snyone. I've just asked a few questions which nobody seems to want to answer.
Actually, `can't' answer. Because if you type the answers out in a message
here (it doesn't even have to be `to' me...), the answers make you have to
look at the whole question with a critical eye. Because the answers tell you
something is definitely wrong.


You have to ask yourself `why the campaign of destruction against any and
all scientists who oppose the pronouncements coming out of East Anglia
University's climate unit headed by Phil Jones.


And something that ought to make EVERYONE sit up and start taking a hard
look at this whole thing is this;


In one of those e-mails a scientist speaks of `everyone having to decide how
`honest' they want to be as opposed to having the flow of funds continue'!


That alone should make people take a few steps back and give this whole
thing a critical look, don't you think?


In other e-mails the talk is plain enough that they're altering past
temperatures to make certain past warm periods `less warm' or to just
`disappear' altogether!


When people are using that kind of language to discuss something that,
just in a 20 year period alone, cost the United States around $80
billion dollars, that situation needs a good long look.


We are being scammed. Robbed. On the instalment plan!

---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)