From: JayDEE65 on

From: assimilate on

On 17-Feb-2010, bknight(a) 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.
> >
> >
> My point is that the opinions voiced here are by people who don't have
> access, nor understanding of the factors in the argument.

that's a cop out Bobby. It isn't that complicated.

From: assimilate on

On 17-Feb-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)> wrote:

> > 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.

burden of proof is on the alarmists.

From: Jim Lovejoy on
BAR <screw(a)> wrote in

> In article <727b5345-da6d-4a98-a229-44c8c6f6a940
>>, johnb505(a) 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?

If you mean what was the majority opinion of those climatologists, it was
global warming.

From: assimilate on

On 17-Feb-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)> wrote:

> > 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.

A preponderance of lies, halve-truths, fudged data, and sanctimonious prigs
like you who get a warm and fuzzy feeling when you think how much more
intelligent and righteous you are than us commoners.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver