Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: bknight on 17 Feb 2010 20:44 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:18:46 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> 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. > > Control of RSG? Only you could come up with that thought. BK
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 20:59 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:21:47 -0500, BAR wrote: > 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. You don't know if AGW exists or not. You don't know to what extent it is supported by the historic record. So it is pretty amazing that you can be so certain about it. By the way, I agree with your last statement: "History didn't start in 1850." Congratulations on producing an actual statement of fact.
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 21:01 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:24:18 -0500, BAR wrote: > 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? I think we should tax non-sequiturs.
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 21:57 In article <7u2fqrFgqkU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "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> > > wrote: > > > >>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:05:54 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >> > >>>>Again, there is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are having > >>>>any significant impact on global temperature. > >>> > >>>That is just as asinine as someone saying that humans are the absolute > >>>cause of global temperature changes. > >>> > >>>But, Jack Hollis of RSG fame, and no climatological background, has > >>>spoken. LOL > >> > >>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. 100% wrong. The only ones peddling absolute certainty in this are the denialists, who are absolutely certain that AGW doesn't exist, even though they never look at the actual data. Scientists don't do "absolute certainty".
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 21:57
In article <MPG.25e654fcb5ed4e77989bd0(a)news.giganews.com>, 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. Proof? And that means more than simplistic, blind prejudice. |