From: William Clark on
In article <4b7cb00c$0$4874$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> 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.

Or even tried to.
From: MNMikeW on

"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f17239b4-36bc-4757-984e-fc04cbac711e(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 4:34 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >> "Carbon" <nob...(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:
> >>>> <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...(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!
>
> That can go both ways. Ignore the skeptical climatologists! If they say
> inconvenient things they must be biased!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Skeptical climatologists? I know of three. Lindzen, Singer and
Michaels. Michaels was the VA state climatologist until the state
canned him for taking industry money. Now he's at the Cato Institute.
Are there others?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/northwest_06-21.html

http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm



From: MNMikeW on

<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
news:er6pn5p9mts13ih4l6ntv8d9vhl30h462v(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:18:46 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> 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.
>>
>>
> Control of RSG? Only you could come up with that thought.
>
> BK

The Clique controls RSG. Everyone knows that. :-)


From: MNMikeW on

"William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-AD021F.22044317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> 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.

For instance, since it was revealed two weeks ago that the IPCC had relied
on speculation by an environmental interest group -- rather than
peer-reviewed science -- when it made its famous 2007 claim that there was a
90% chance all 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas would be melted by 2035, the
agency's lead glacier scientist, Murari Lal, has admitted he knew the data
was faulty when he inserted it in the UN's last official Assessment Report,
but he did so nonetheless because "we thought that if we can highlight it,
it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some
concrete action."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/African-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html




From: MNMikeW on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> 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.

LOL Mr. Kettle.



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver