Dan Luke wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:

So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written
to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW,
while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for
same. Then read the rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do
you think they are misrepresenting substantial portions of their
memberships?

I suggest you review their position on AGW.


Why?


Because it's not what you imply it to be.