Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 22 Feb 2010 13:32 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b827115$0$4891$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:49:36 -0500, BAR wrote: >> In article <4b81f556$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:02:46 +0000, assimilate wrote: >>>> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Inhofe has said repeatedly that global warming is "the biggest >>>>>>> hoax ever perpetrated against the American people." >>>>>> >>>>>> He is not speaking of the climate at all, he is speaking of the >>>>>> politically driven tax the wealthy agenda of the IPCC. >>>>> >>>>> "Global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American >>>>> people." -- Sen. James Inhofe, 2003. >>>> >>>> exactly, the hoax part is the whole Carbon Tax regime that would >>>> "solve all our problems" not to mention the exaggerated threats � la >>>> Gorical. >>> >>> You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not >>> global warming is valid, correct? >> >> You understand that taxing carbon will not stop the natural cycle of >> warming and cooling that the planet has gone through for the last >> couple of billion years? > > You're certain that any proposed solution will have no discernible > effect, are you? How would that be? Unless everyone is on board (China,India,ect) it wont do much.
From: William Clark on 22 Feb 2010 16:40 In article <ATxgn.75238$OX4.51506(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > > > > You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not global > > > warming is valid, correct? > > > > > And whether global warming is valid has nothing to do about whether any > > particular way of dealing with it is optimum. > > > > Other than the obvious that IF global warming is valid, puting your > > fingers > > in your ears and chanting "nha nha can't hear you" is not optimum. > > that IF becomes larger every day as we see what shoddy science is behind > such claims But you don't, because you wouldn't know "shoddy science" unless Fox news told you. This is a classic strawman argument, designed to hamper progress towards dealing with the real issues.
From: William Clark on 22 Feb 2010 16:42 In article <3Xxgn.76283$OX4.5921(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > The evidence suggests that the effect is significant, and is > > swamping the natural cycle to unprecedented levels. > > the <cough, cough> evidence is being called into question. The "proposed" > solutions look worse than the "problem." No it is not - at least by any one other than the denialists, who have a financial stake in convincing everyone that the emperor has no clothes. The fact remains that the quibbles that heave been blown into mountains are just that - minor quibbles. The main predictions and conclusions remain, in spite of what a certain hysterical section of the media would have us believe.
From: Moderate on 22 Feb 2010 16:51 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <ATxgn.75238$OX4.51506(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org > wrote: > >> On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: >> >> > > You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not >> > > global >> > > warming is valid, correct? >> > > >> > And whether global warming is valid has nothing to do about whether any >> > particular way of dealing with it is optimum. >> > >> > Other than the obvious that IF global warming is valid, puting your >> > fingers >> > in your ears and chanting "nha nha can't hear you" is not optimum. >> >> that IF becomes larger every day as we see what shoddy science is behind >> such claims > > But you don't, because you wouldn't know "shoddy science" unless Fox > news told you. This is a classic strawman argument, designed to hamper > progress towards dealing with the real issues. Blaming FoxNews is the strawman argument.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 17:07
On Feb 22, 4:42 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: > In article <3Xxgn.76283$OX4.5...(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimil...(a)borg.org > wrote: > > > On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > The evidence suggests that the effect is significant, and is > > > swamping the natural cycle to unprecedented levels. > > > the <cough, cough> evidence is being called into question. The "proposed" > > solutions look worse than the "problem." > > No it is not - at least by any one other than the denialists, who have a > financial stake in convincing everyone that the emperor has no clothes. > The fact remains that the quibbles that heave been blown into mountains > are just that - minor quibbles. The main predictions and conclusions > remain, in spite of what a certain hysterical section of the media would > have us believe. What "major prediction" in this area has come to be...and they have been making them for 40 years now. Name one that has happened. |