Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 22:03 In article <MPG.25e6526d4d529eff989bcf(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> 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. Then you have clear evidence that the 3,000 pages of data and analysis in the IPCC report are wrong? Please share it with us, rather than these stupid National Enquirer type headlines.
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 22:04 In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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. But the fact remains that, for all their huffing and puffing, the denialists have yet to prove any of the IPCC Report conclusions to be wrong.
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 22:05 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:02:41 -0500, William Clark wrote: > 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: >>>> >>>>> 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. Yep.
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 22:12 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:04:43 -0500, William Clark wrote: > In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> 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. > > But the fact remains that, for all their huffing and puffing, the > denialists have yet to prove any of the IPCC Report conclusions to be > wrong. Well, it's not like the denialists here understand the science.
From: Jack Hollis on 17 Feb 2010 22:32
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:03:56 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 17, 7:32=A0pm, 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. =A0If you are going to say that AGW is happening, >> you have to support it with proof. =A0No one has to prove that it isn't >> happening. =A0The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim. >> That's how science works. =A0 > >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. There is no compelling evidence that humans are making any significant contribution to global warming. There are opinions, but they're not evidence. What you have to understand is that science cannot make such determinations. The earth's climate is too complex and not well enough understood to be able to isolate one specific factor and determine exactly what effect it is having on the entire global climate. It can't be done. I see no reason to increase the cost of energy production in order to limit the amount of CO2 emissions. |