Crap Andre. I don't take kindly to sarcastic smilies. What you are saying, in other words, is that you are ignorant of the first, and therefore cannot discuss the science behind it, and probably the same with Hamaker and Weaver. Since both those books, are based on fact, and are related to the coming ice-age, they are very much on topic. So how about, instead of being smart, you get up off your seat, replace the brain you were sitting on, and see if it will actually start properly. How you can attempt to just joke about something this serious, is beyond my comprehension. Heso
Please wake up, Andre No Andre, it was not a "scientific" response to my question. As usual, you evade the issue, by instead of answering the question, putting up something else, unrelated to what I asked. Of course, my comments weren't very nice. If that's what it takes to get to to stick to the issue, then such "jogs" to your memory banks will continue. To your informational decoy: Your friend Singer, on the one hand gives his reasons as to why there is no global warming, the makes this incredible statement Since when do economist have the climactic and scientific knowledge to know the relationship between CO2/ "warmer" climates and resultant cooling of the atmosphere? Since when are "economists" the repository of all wisdom? They can't even get any countries budget/deficit/forecast predictions correct, so why on earth would anyone accept their projections for anything? This guy has as little brains as many of the others do. I asked you a simple question. What you thought of the science documented in Hamaker and Weaver, and Gribben's book. You responded with total bumpfh and sarcastic smilies, so you deserved the riposte that was delivered. I suppose you will say that this following incident didn't happen either: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm I have not put the full article here... Now this is a scientific "response". Perhaps you will now discuss the issue at hand, instead of trying to push your own barrow... Oh, and I am well aware that the Antartica once had larch trees, and flowers etc etc..... But that still doesn't make your theory (what ever that is) right. So why don't you discuss the actual science of the ice age theory here, and start your own thread containing the evidence for your theory as to why there is NOT and never has been an ice age any time...., and we can discuss that there...?
