Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 21:54 In article <6ggmn59v2bh93koqmogubjeo8ahpvjf4re(a)4ax.com>, 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. Show me the place in the IPCC > report where it says with absolute certainty that the current warming > trend is being caused by humans. Science is not about certainty, it is about probability. I would have thought that someone who claims to have a PhD would understand that, but, oh, well. > > The bottom line is that science is unable to do any such thing. Science would not try to "say such a thing". Certainty is something left to the Fox News wingnuts.
From: bknight on 16 Feb 2010 22:08 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:53:33 -0500, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: >In article <cqfmn550g9s49m0mbb4m3q2bhas90s0iqn(a)4ax.com>, > bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >> That is just as asinine as someone saying that humans are the absolute >> cause of global temperature changes. > >Yes, somehow "asinine" seems appropriate in this context. You might want to back off a little Bill. Your opinions have been well noticed on this topic too. Its a good topic to let die. BK
From: John B. on 16 Feb 2010 22:18 On Feb 16, 8:49 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rur...(a)4ax.com>, > bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> > > wrote: > > > >On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:05:54 -0600, bkni...(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? You argue on the one hand that global warming is "an uncertainty," and on the other that the cost of ameliorating it is a certainty. Are conservative economists more believable than climatologists?
From: Moderate on 17 Feb 2010 08:26 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:22b4371d-ac72-4127-aaaa-ab50e552261c(a)g17g2000vba.googlegroups.com... On Feb 16, 8:49 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > 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? You argue on the one hand that global warming is "an uncertainty," and on the other that the cost of ameliorating it is a certainty. Are conservative economists more believable than climatologists? ********************************************************** Absolutely. There are real numbers on the costs. The AGW numbers don't exist.
From: John B. on 17 Feb 2010 09:15
On Feb 17, 8:26 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:22b4371d-ac72-4127-aaaa-ab50e552261c(a)g17g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 16, 8:49 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > You argue on the one hand that global warming is "an uncertainty," and > on the other that the cost of ameliorating it is a certainty. Are > conservative economists more believable than climatologists? > > ********************************************************** > > Absolutely. There are real numbers on the costs. The AGW numbers don't > exist. Yes, there are real numbers. And then there are other real numbers. They don't all agree and they don't all forecast huge costs to taxpayers. Economists are not infallible. |