From: MNMikeW on

"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

"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

"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

"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
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.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver