the thing about that da is that you refuse to discuss what the scientist (good, reputable, scientist working in that field) are saying just because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science. Well, the BBC is not pure science either but you have no problem accepting them. You have no problem accepting reports from NASA that support your claims, but not ones that disagree with you. why should we post the links if you ignore what they say and only attack the sites owners. Ive given you links to things from NASA or other just as reputable, but you ignore them and attack the site owners of the other links that support that or from which i found the links to NASA's reports.

The problem with many sites is that they want things that are newsworth, or contriversal or is part of the latest hot topic. They dont want to report people saying, "there is nothing to worry about" they want to report people saying, "if you dont listen to us, your children will die". They dont want to report people saying, "everything is going according to the earths cycles, albet with a tiny change due to mans influence". THAT is not sensational enough for the majority of sites. The ones that do post these report are considered by elitist to be unworth of their time because they are not very sensational enough and because they are willing to go against popular alarmist rhetoric.

I personally dont care if the site owners are "ihaveanaxetogrind.com", if they have reports that are done by others, ill pay attension and look at what the scientist have said. Of course after that you have to find out if the scientist actually did say those things. that is not a given.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.