Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 17 Feb 2010 10:17 <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message news:cqfmn550g9s49m0mbb4m3q2bhas90s0iqn(a)4ax.com... > 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 Al Gore on line 1.
From: MNMikeW on 17 Feb 2010 10:20 <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > 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. > > That would be nice, and is needed. But this is all about politics now. >>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. > Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being settled.
From: MNMikeW on 17 Feb 2010 10:24 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:1vkmn5l28j9572j977a85rhdl5nahd1ipd(a)4ax.com... > 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. Yes we will have to see if he sticks to his guns, or lets the far left eco-nuts dictate policy.
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 11:12 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >> wrote: >> >>>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. >> > Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of > that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being > settled. Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, now can you?
From: Frank Ketchum on 17 Feb 2010 11:21
"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:7u2fqrFgqkU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... >> 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. >> >> > That would be nice, and is needed. But this is all about politics now. This has ALWAYS been all about politics as some of us have been pointing out for years and years. Now this fact is becoming clear to more and more people, the ideologues in here notwithstanding. >>>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. >> > Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of that! > The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being settled. > > > |