From: Frank Ketchum on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> 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?

You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that AGW does
occur.

The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for years
that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was and is a lie plain
and simple promoted for political reasons masquerading behind faulty
"science".


From: bknight on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com>
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>

>>>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.
>
>
My point is that the opinions voiced here are by people who don't have
access, nor understanding of the factors in the argument.

BK
From: MNMikeW on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> 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?

You cannot say it's right either. But that is exactly what the AGW crowd
does.


From: MNMikeW on

<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
news:0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnouve4(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com>
> 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>
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
> My point is that the opinions voiced here are by people who don't have
> access, nor understanding of the factors in the argument.
>
> BK

There is plenty of information out there for one to form a reasonable
opinion on it. There are no politicians here either but everyone has an
opinion on that.


From: bknight on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:14:15 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com>
wrote:

>
><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnouve4(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com>
>> 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>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>> My point is that the opinions voiced here are by people who don't have
>> access, nor understanding of the factors in the argument.
>>
>> BK
>
>There is plenty of information out there for one to form a reasonable
>opinion on it. There are no politicians here either but everyone has an
>opinion on that.
>

Another topic that should go away.

BK
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver