Robert Berglund wrote:glasseye wrote:Robert Berglund wrote:
Still waiting, Robert, for a pointer to your story about intercepting terrorist aircraft attacks on LA buildings.
Waiting...
Glasseye..it wont matter what you hear or what you read or what you see, your minds made up and nothing is gonna change it.
Have you Googled the subject...maybe youll find something not to believe there
So you're getting your facts from a local AM radio station somewhere and
I'm expected to find it somehow? That's your proof? You expect
me to Google for facts that you declare? Sorry, that's not the way it works.
Here's how it works:
I say something like "The Fossil fuel biz are a bunch of hypocrites"
Then, I provide proof. Like this:
A recent article in the New York Times says:
"For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming."
“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue"
"But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."
Then, I provide a
link to the original article. Like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/scien ... ml?_r=1&hp
See? It's easy. Incontrovertible fact. Not hearsay. Not "I heard it on a local AM radio talk show". Not "Look it up yourself".
That's the way it works. You provide data, not anecdote. Fact, not crap. Then, people might take you seriously. Until then, you're just noise.
