|
Title: ummmmmmmm Post by: Aske on August 04, 2009, 10:14:52 AM http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204313604574327992553917308.html
Title: Re: ummmmmmmm Post by: hobbit on August 04, 2009, 11:21:21 AM Certainly not up to WSJ standards, but it is the opinion page afterall.
The argument is all over the place and he never provides anything to back it - which is probably why he jumps all over. As the resident right wing nut job ::), even I will call this 'fail'. Title: Re: ummmmmmmm Post by: Aske on August 04, 2009, 12:16:03 PM Certainly not up to WSJ standards, but it is the opinion page afterall. The argument is all over the place and he never provides anything to back it - which is probably why he jumps all over. As the resident right wing nut job ::), even I will call this 'fail'. well, I was just going for the CO is not carbon dioxide angle... Title: Re: ummmmmmmm Post by: hobbit on August 04, 2009, 12:40:55 PM Me hates chemistry
Title: Re: ummmmmmmm Post by: Blader on August 04, 2009, 07:28:24 PM if he really means CO, not CO2, it would explain a lot about the Chinese
|