From: William Clark on
In article <mq4fn.1040$1L.947(a)newsfe01.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:

> On 17-Feb-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> 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.

Really? Please cite all these malfeasances, because no one else who has
conducted any kind of serious analysis of the data reaches the same
conclusion. i leave aside the loony denialists like Monckton and Lawson
and co., none of whom have managed to do so either.
From: William Clark on
In article <elcpn51l2o7st7u8640jfn6mpigjff6q9g(a)4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:

> 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.

Wrong, again, jack. Read the IPCC Report - it does not offer opinions,
just mountains of data, and its statistical analysis. You are dead wrong.
>
> I see no reason to increase the cost of energy production in order to
> limit the amount of CO2 emissions.

Of course you don't. I am sure your children and grandchildren will
thank you for your prejudice.
From: bknight on
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:34:44 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:

>
>On 17-Feb-2010, bknight(a)conramp.net 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.

It seems to be for this bunch.


BK
From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.25e6fe21f162a4c4989bea(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <wclark2-4E4650.22034617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> The rats are abandoning the ship; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021801331_pf.html

Sorry, they are not. You try to cherry pick one here and there, just so
you can avoid the mountain of evidence. How pathetic.
From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.25e6fe21f162a4c4989bea(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <wclark2-4E4650.22034617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> The rats are abandoning the ship; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021801331_pf.html

So he quits for another post? Just like Sarah Palin, eh? I didn't hear
you refer to her as a rat.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver