On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:38:31 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW, and that
Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate science

Damn, that's a tough question. May I thjink about it for a few hours?

Indeed you may 'thjink' (sic) for as many hours as you like.

WE all know you (and the worm) don't know **** about science, thus Worm's
irrelevant meta-arguments and non-science appeal to you.

Don't let Ivar Giaever get in your muddled "thjink", you might kill your
last neuron.