I just wanted to make sure, since I know some others were (understandably) confused. The reason I said the second map

is irrelevant is because, aside from the fact it is based on

junk "global warming" science, it shows a very small percentage increase in the python range over the next 100 years. Who cares?? To me this is a blatant attempt to confuse people and/or just work in "global warming" to scare people. It can't even be disguised as anything else.



I agree with you, this is probably the most egregious and blatant examples of junk science/deception I've ever seen. I truly believe a Congressional investigation would not be out of line. (Not that it would ever happen..)



Thanks,

Ed







>>I know there were two maps, and both of them or ridiculous. One map was a projection based on a very limited data set that will never be a reality for a number of reasons. The other was the same basic map again with the guesswork of global warming added into the deal.

>>

>>I really hope the scientist that put this together feel ashamed of what they had to do.

>>

>>Lance

>>-----

>>___________________________

>>Herp Conservation Unlimited

[ Show Entire Thread ]