Posted by:
natsamjosh
at Tue Mar 11 12:59:56 2008 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by natsamjosh ]
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
[ Hide Replies ]
|