From: John B. on
On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> > > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
> > >>> <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
> > >>>news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com...
> > >>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Show me the place in the IPCC report  where it says with absolute
> > >>>>>certainty that the current warming trend is being caused by humans..
>
> > >>>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any
> > >>>> argument.
>
> > >>> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of
> > >>> that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being
> > >>> settled.
>
> > >> Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, now
> > >> can you?
>
> > > You can't say that AGW doesn't occur.  You also can't say that AGW
> > > does occur.
>
> > > The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for
> > > years that the science is settled and AGW is happening.  It was and is
> > > a lie plain and simple promoted for political reasons masquerading
> > > behind faulty "science".
>
> > Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all the
> > non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the best
> > possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the climatologists! If
> > they say inconvenient things they must be biased!
>
> Have you been living in a cave since November? The "climatologists" have
> not been involved in science, they have been caught advancing political
> views and social engineering. As each new day passes the revelations
> that the WWF, a student's master thesis and other rabid environmentalist
> organizations have been used as references to promote the catastrophic
> warming described in the IPCC reports. But, you can ignore all of that
> and stick to your guns and ignore all of this because you it doesn't fit
> your desired outcome.

There are lots of climatologists in the world. The huge majority of
them don't work at East Anglia Univ., and had nothing to do with the
research that's been discredited or called into question. Atmospheric
scientists have been studying this issue since the late '70s. The
research you refer to probably represents a fraction of 1% of all
their findings.
From: Jack Hollis on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:24:16 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com>
wrote:

>> BTW, I was happy to see Obama support building new nuclear power
>> plants. I'm a bit surprised to tell you the truth. It's a major
>> threat to coal fired plants and gas as well. Coal mining is a highly
>> unionized business and the railroads transport a lot of coal and
>> that's another highly unionized business.
>>
>> It will also make it more difficult for wind and solar energy.
>>
>> That's a lot of special interests usually catered to by the Democrats
>> that can't be happy to see nuclear plants being built again.
>>
>> In any case, the Obama Administration finally had a good idea.
>
>Yes we will have to see if he sticks to his guns, or lets the far left
>eco-nuts dictate policy.

Over the years, I've worked in both the mining and the electric power
industry and I can say that burning coal to make electricity is a
dirty business from start to finish.

All factors considered, nuclear power is a much better alternative. I
think that some environmentalists are beginning to understand this,
but there are still many holdouts. I'm not a CO2 alarmist, but there
are a lot of other environmental issues related to coal mining and
coal burning.

What a cost. Thirty years of burning cola for around 60% of US
electricity when it could have easily been totally eliminated over a
decade ago.
From: Carbon on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR wrote:
> In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis
>>>>>> <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with
>>>>>>> absolute certainty that the current warming trend is being
>>>>>>> caused by humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be
>>>>>> any argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none
>>>>> of that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from
>>>>> being settled.
>>>>
>>>> Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong,
>>>> now can you?
>>>
>>> You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that AGW
>>> does occur.
>>>
>>> The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for
>>> years that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was and
>>> is a lie plain and simple promoted for political reasons
>>> masquerading behind faulty "science".
>>
>> Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all
>> the non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the
>> best possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the
>> climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be biased!
>
> Have you been living in a cave since November? The "climatologists"
> have not been involved in science, they have been caught advancing
> political views and social engineering. As each new day passes the
> revelations that the WWF, a student's master thesis and other rabid
> environmentalist organizations have been used as references to promote
> the catastrophic warming described in the IPCC reports. But, you can
> ignore all of that and stick to your guns and ignore all of this
> because you it doesn't fit your desired outcome.

I'll try this one more time. The fact that there are douchebags in a
particular field does not invalidate that entire field of study. It just
doesn't follow. I honestly wonder at the mental capacity of anyone who
would think otherwise.
From: John B. on
On Feb 17, 7:32 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2010 16:12:52 GMT, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of
> >> that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being
> >> settled.
>
> >Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, now can
> >you?
>
> You missed the point.  If you are going to say that AGW is happening,
> you have to support it with proof.  No one has to prove that it isn't
> happening.  The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim.
> That's how science works.  

No one has to prove that it IS happening, either. The scientific
community has to present compelling evidence that human activities are
affecting the climate. I think they've done that. I'm sure you hold
conservative economists to the same standard when they say climate
change amelioration would wreak economic havoc.
From: bknight on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>In article <0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnouve4(a)4ax.com>,
>bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>> >news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
>>
>> >>>I have no idea how much humans are contributing to the current warming
>> >>>trend and neither does anyone else.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly.
>> >>
>> >> So how can you even discuss how much scientific proof there is... or
>> >> isn't? This whole discussion here has reached a point of silliness,
>> >> and definite, absolute, statements are rife. Two years ago 72% of
>> >> climatologists thought that humans had something to do with global
>> >> warming. Wonder what that percentage is now?
>> >>
>> >> Let the scientists hassle it out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >That would be nice, and is needed. But this is all about politics now.
>> >
>> >
>> >>>Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with absolute
>> >>>certainty that the current warming
>> >>>trend is being caused by humans.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any
>> >> argument.
>> >>
>> >Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of that!
>> >The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being settled.
>> >
>> >
>> My point is that the opinions voiced here are by people who don't have
>> access, nor understanding of the factors in the argument.
>
>You are kidding, I hope.
>
>I know when someone is feeding me a line of BS and trying to steal money
>out of my wallet. Global Warming/Climate Change is BS and a money grab.
>
>
How does this have anything to do with the fact that you don't have
access to the intricacies of this argument, and probably wouldn't
understand them if you did?

Oh yeah. Exactly how much money are you personally out because of
this?

LOL

BK

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver