Passing something before you know what's in it sounds eerily similar to a stool sample.
Bingo Charles. If GW is supposedly proven based on some criteria, the same scientists should be able to specify a criteria that disproves it. You never heard a single GW scientist predict more snow from GW until *after* it happened. How about some predictions? And specific predictions. Not the usual general 'you are going to see more bad stuff'.
Post a Comment