Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 21:58 In article <4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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. Or, in the words of Rush Limbaugh (but therefore acceptable, as it is satire), a f*****g retard.
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 21:58 In article <MPG.25e66037eed8f0b9989bd9(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> 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. There speaks the voice of absolute certainty, based on no evidence at all.
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 22:00 In article <cf2pn5dcunk2iaqbrchm2csshguep66q4b(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On 17 Feb 2010 16:12:52 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(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. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, which none of you wingnuts either can, or bother to, read, is that there is a significant contribution from AGW. That's the starting point, so now you can jump up and down and stamp your feet again.
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 22:02 In article <wHUen.74969$RS6.11194(a)newsfe15.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> 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". No they have not been saying it is "settled". They do say that the preponderance of available evidence, and a very significant preponderance, indicates that it does. If you want to take the opposite view, you need to produce some counter evidence, and that does not mean shouting about the principals.
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 22:02
In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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! This is just like listening to the creationists. Zero science, total certainty. |