From: William Clark on
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
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
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

"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
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.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver