Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: bknight on 16 Feb 2010 20:38 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. >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. >The bottom line is that science is unable to do any such thing. Neither can you, or I, or Moderate, BAR. Mike, Carbon, Rob or anyone else here. Sure a lot of puffery here though. BK
From: BAR on 16 Feb 2010 20:49 In article <7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > 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. > > > >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. > > >The bottom line is that science is unable to do any such thing. > > Neither can you, or I, or Moderate, BAR. Mike, Carbon, Rob or anyone > else here. > > Sure a lot of puffery here though. The problem is that people like you are willing to force the rest of us to pay through the nose for an uncertainty. If it is later determined that global warming is a fallacy will I be able to get my money back, with interest?
From: Jack Hollis on 16 Feb 2010 21:41 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:38:10 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>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. > > >>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. > >>The bottom line is that science is unable to do any such thing. > >Neither can you, or I, or Moderate, BAR. Mike, Carbon, Rob or anyone >else here. > >Sure a lot of puffery here though. > >BK The AGW scientists are making the claim and the burden of proof is on them. In science, the burden of proof is the 95% confidence level. Statements like "likely" or "most likely" don't make it. BTW, I was happy to see Obama support building new nuclear power plants. I'm a bit surprised to tell you the truth. It's a major threat to coal fired plants and gas as well. Coal mining is a highly unionized business and the railroads transport a lot of coal and that's another highly unionized business. It will also make it more difficult for wind and solar energy. That's a lot of special interests usually catered to by the Democrats that can't be happy to see nuclear plants being built again. In any case, the Obama Administration finally had a good idea.
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 21:53 In article <s1fmn5dboki0je8gvn0gpjjo9rhvep4a8k(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:50:51 -0500, "Frank Ketchum" > <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > >Phil Jones also said (via email) > > > >"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps > >to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from > >1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." > > > >I'm guessing you only focus on some things he said. > > > The guy is a proven liar. Why would anyone assume that he would tell > the truth to the BBC. Only proven to you, but then you are a "Columbia graduate", so you should know one when you see one. > > Again, there is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are having > any significant impact on global temperature. Stick to soccer, pal, that way you embarrass yourself less.
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 21:53
In article <cqfmn550g9s49m0mbb4m3q2bhas90s0iqn(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:48:00 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > >On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:50:51 -0500, "Frank Ketchum" > ><nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > >>Phil Jones also said (via email) > >> > >>"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps > >>to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from > >>1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." > >> > >>I'm guessing you only focus on some things he said. > > > > > >The guy is a proven liar. Why would anyone assume that he would tell > >the truth to the BBC. > > > >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 Yes, somehow "asinine" seems appropriate in this context. |