Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 17 Feb 2010 14:26 In article <1vkmn5l28j9572j977a85rhdl5nahd1ipd(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. No it isn't, other than in clinical trials, and they are not science. The measure is the balance of probability.
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 16:12 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote: > "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". Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all the non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the best possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be biased!
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 16:13 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:10:27 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > "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. I said from the beginning that I have no idea if it's true or not. Neither does anyone else here. The entire argument is ridiculous.
From: MNMikeW on 17 Feb 2010 16:34 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote: >> "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". > > Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all the > non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the best > possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the climatologists! If > they say inconvenient things they must be biased! That can go both ways. Ignore the skeptical climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be biased!
From: John B. on 17 Feb 2010 17:21
On Feb 17, 4:34 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote: > >> "Carbon" <nob...(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: > >>>> <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >>>>news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > >>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...(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". > > > Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all the > > non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the best > > possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the climatologists! If > > they say inconvenient things they must be biased! > > That can go both ways. Ignore the skeptical climatologists! If they say > inconvenient things they must be biased!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Skeptical climatologists? I know of three. Lindzen, Singer and Michaels. Michaels was the VA state climatologist until the state canned him for taking industry money. Now he's at the Cato Institute. Are there others? |