"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ps.com...
"Dan Luke" wrote in message news:
...

In fact, it is the politicians who are attempting to *tone down* the
language
of the latest scientific findings. The scientific authors are angry that
the
politicians have tried to dilute the seriousness of their results by
altering
the language:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ereport08.html

Oh now that's a good read. Tell me. If you come across a
scientific paper that has for one of its conclusions that "Global
warming could increase the number of hungry in 2080 by
between 140 million and 1 billion, depending on how much
greenhouse gas is emitted in coming decades.", doesn't that
register on your BS meter? What is "could"? What is "hungry"?
And what are the greenhouse gas levels we're talking about?

Quite! Sounds like Dan is channeling Paul Erlich circa 1980.

Dan your credibility just went to ZERO.