From: BAR on
In article <jj2pn59q3f32b13lfaj9i0nnjes857c0sh(a)4ax.com>,
bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> >nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
>
> >>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.
> >
>
> Just for kicks, what is his desired outcome, and why? Now show us
> your mind-reading capabilities Bert.

Control.



From: BAR on
In article <4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0500, BAR 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>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> You don't like AGW because you disagree with the politics of many of its
> supporters. You have absolutely no idea what the real truth is. You're
> like a child.

I don't like AGW because it doesn't exist. It is a theory and a bad
theory that is not supported by the historic record. History didn't
start in 1850.

From: BAR on
In article <727b5345-da6d-4a98-a229-44c8c6f6a940
@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> >
> > 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.

What were all of these "climatologists" promoting in the mid to late
70's?



From: BAR on
In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> 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.
>

Are you for or against taxing carbon?


From: Carbon on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:18:46 -0500, BAR wrote:
> In article <jj2pn59q3f32b13lfaj9i0nnjes857c0sh(a)4ax.com>,
> bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>>>In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>>>nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Just for kicks, what is his desired outcome, and why? Now show us
>> your mind-reading capabilities Bert.
>
> Control.

And this is different from the anti-AGW apologists, how exactly?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver