From: BAR on
In article <4b7c9f1b$0$5095$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> 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.

Please pass along this fact to the IPCC and the "climatologist" who
believe history started with the industrial revolution and that the
billions of years of Earth's existence and climatic cycles that preceded
1850 should be studied too.

Was CO2 and the Earths temperature ever greater than it is now and why?


From: BAR on
In article <SLKdnelMqMxdT-HWnZ2dnUVZ_sJi4p2d(a)nventure.com>,
nospam(a)devnull.spam says...
>
> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.25e6607b46d44dee989bda(a)news.giganews.com:
>
> > 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?
>
> If you mean what was the majority opinion of those climatologists, it was
> global warming.
>

No, it was the coming of the next ice age. Nobody was predicting any
warming at all.


From: BAR on
In article <4b7c9f93$0$5095$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> 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.

I'll take your answer as a yes to taxing carbon.



From: BAR on
In article <4b7c9759$0$5107$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> 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?

I don't want to tax every breath you exhale!
From: BAR on
In article <wclark2-EB1AE8.22003517022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
>
> 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.

We do not accept your evidence because it is steeped in policial motives
and social engineering.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver