AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:54:52 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> jim beam > wrote in
>>> t:
>>>
>>>> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>>>>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>>>>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>>>>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>>>>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>>>>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>>>> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
>>>> spelled it "coral", not corral.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
>>> health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
>>> (stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.
>
>> As I just explained in a just posted reply, the "corral" instead of
>> coral is probably due to my habit of stuffing myself at the Golden
>> Corral on a weekly basis. Irony would have it that an individual who
>> criticizes spelling while himself cannot find a "shift" key is... well,
>> ironic..
>
>
>
>>> And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
>>> inexcusably argumentative.
>>>
>>> I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
>>> cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
>>> essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
>>> feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
>>> demand".
>>> And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
>>> pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
>>>
>>> I did some digging for you. Here,
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
>>> Grumpy just might be correct.
>
>> I should be. I was there in person.
>
>
>>> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
>>> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
>>> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.
>
>> Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had the
>> masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just like
>> the ol' Watergate event.
>
> Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.


Enjoy the kool aid...

JT