From: Jack Hollis on
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:04:53 -0800 (PST), "John B."
<johnb505(a)> wrote:

>They don't believe history started with the industrial revolution.
>They believe GHG emissions started with the industrial revolution.

Do you mean there was no CO2 in the atmosphere before the IR?
From: Jack Hollis on
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:02:23 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)>

>> "Truely"? OK. show me where the science is "settled".
>It isnt. But somebody might want to tell Al Gore that.

Right now Al Gore is probably too bust worrying about how he's not
making any money selling carbon credits.
From: Carbon on
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:19:27 -0500, BAR wrote:
> In article <4b7dc51c$0$4954$9a6e19ea(a)>,
> nobrac(a) says...
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:20:49 -0500, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <4b7c9759$0$5107$9a6e19ea(a)>,
>>> nobrac(a) says...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:18:46 -0500, BAR wrote:
>>>>> In article <jj2pn59q3f32b13lfaj9i0nnjes857c0sh(a)>,
>>>>> bknight(a) says...
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)>,
>>>>>>> nobrac(a) 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!
>> I see. So you don't know or care about the truth or the potential for
>> future devastation if the AGW alarmists turn out to be correct. You
>> just want the lowest possible tax rate. Bert, you are a man among
>> men.
> AGW is a theory.

So is gravity.

> Yes, I want the lowest taxes. Taxes are legalized theft.

It is amazing how some words resonate with a segment of the population.
To say that something is a theory says nothing about it's validity. And
it makes no financial sense to pay lower taxes if you have to more than
make up for it in other areas. For example, with ridiculously high
insurance premiums.
From: Jack Hollis on
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:05:35 -0800 (PST), "John B."
<johnb505(a)> wrote:

>I assume you're talking about the IPCC report on the melting of
>Himalayan glaciers. It has not been proven wrong. It has only been
>shown not to be based on peer-reviewed research and therefore not
>worthy of inclusion in an IPCC report. As for glaciers in general,
>they're melting all over the world.

Some glaciers are melting some are expanding. In any case, the
glaciers have been shrinking since the end of the last ice age. Every
glacier on the planet could melt and that still wouldn't prove that
man had anything to do with it.

I think that almost everyone agrees that the overall trend since the
end of the mini ice age has been one of warming. Accordingly, you
would expect that glaciers would be melting.
From: John B. on
On Feb 18, 7:56 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:02:27 -0800 (PST), "John B."
> <johnb...(a)> wrote:
> >> There is no compelling evidence that humans are making any significant
> >> contribution to global warming. =A0There are opinions, but they're not
> >> evidence. =A0What you have to understand is that science cannot make
> >> such determinations. =A0The 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. =A0It 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.
> I've been looking for it but haven't seen it yet.  Where is it?

You must not have been looking very hard. Either that or you have a
unique definition of the word "evidence."
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver