On Jan 1, 8:05*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
"Flaps_50!" wrote:

Its simple. Not one could debate the proposition since the only
SCIENTIFIC evidence for AGW is a COMPUTER MODEL. When will you AGW
nutcases get that through your stupid barrier?

• Then there are the 30,000 IPCC members of
whom less than 60 by IPCC account actually
approved wholly or partially to the IPCC #4
report and the 20 who did the stupid rehash
for Copenhagen [There is duplication there]

—*—
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena