Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 10:38 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-81AC2A.21583117022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Or, in the words of Rush Limbaugh (but therefore acceptable, as it is > satire), a f*****g retard. I think you mean Rahm Emanuael.
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 10:41 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-3DC0E6.21570317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7u2fqrFgqkU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "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> >> > wrote: >> > >> >>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:05:54 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >> >> >>>>Again, there is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are having >> >>>>any significant impact on global temperature. >> >>> >> >>>That is just as asinine as someone saying that humans are the absolute >> >>>cause of global temperature changes. >> >>> >> >>>But, Jack Hollis of RSG fame, and no climatological background, has >> >>>spoken. LOL >> >> >> >>I have no idea how much humans are contributing to the current warming >> >>trend and neither does anyone else. >> > >> > Exactly. >> > >> > So how can you even discuss how much scientific proof there is... or >> > isn't? This whole discussion here has reached a point of silliness, >> > and definite, absolute, statements are rife. Two years ago 72% of >> > climatologists thought that humans had something to do with global >> > warming. Wonder what that percentage is now? >> > >> > Let the scientists hassle it out. >> > >> > >> That would be nice, and is needed. But this is all about politics now. >> >> >> >>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. > > 100% wrong. The only ones peddling absolute certainty in this are the > denialists, You truely are an idiot.
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 10:42 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-5A4756.22020617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <wHUen.74969$RS6.11194(a)newsfe15.iad>, > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> 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". > > No they have not been saying it is "settled". You truely are an idiot.
From: Moderate on 18 Feb 2010 10:53 "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. Are you nuts? The hockey stick has been proven wrong, the glacial shrinking has been proven wrong, the sea level theory has been proven wrong. Good grief.
From: John B. on 18 Feb 2010 11:02
On Feb 17, 10:32 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:03:56 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > > > > > <johnb...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is a great deal of evidence. I suggest you make an effort to look for it. |