From: BAR on
In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> 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!

Have you been living in a cave since November? The "climatologists" have
not been involved in science, they have been caught advancing political
views and social engineering. As each new day passes the revelations
that the WWF, a student's master thesis and other rabid environmentalist
organizations have been used as references to promote the catastrophic
warming described in the IPCC reports. But, you can ignore all of that
and stick to your guns and ignore all of this because you it doesn't fit
your desired outcome.


From: Jack Hollis on
On 17 Feb 2010 16:12:52 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:

>> 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 missed the point. If you are going to say that AGW is happening,
you have to support it with proof. No one has to prove that it isn't
happening. The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim.
That's how science works.
From: bknight on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...


>>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!
>
>Have you been living in a cave since November? The "climatologists" have
>not been involved in science, they have been caught advancing political
>views and social engineering. As each new day passes the revelations
>that the WWF, a student's master thesis and other rabid environmentalist
>organizations have been used as references to promote the catastrophic
>warming described in the IPCC reports. But, you can ignore all of that
>and stick to your guns and ignore all of this because you it doesn't fit
>your desired outcome.
>

Just for kicks, what is his desired outcome, and why? Now show us
your mind-reading capabilities Bert.

BK
From: BAR on
In article <0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnouve4(a)4ax.com>,
bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>
> 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.

You are kidding, I hope.

I know when someone is feeding me a line of BS and trying to steal money
out of my wallet. Global Warming/Climate Change is BS and a money grab.




From: Carbon on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0500, BAR wrote:
> In article <0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnouve4(a)4ax.com>,
> bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> You are kidding, I hope.
>
> I know when someone is feeding me a line of BS and trying to steal
> money out of my wallet. Global Warming/Climate Change is BS and a
> money grab.

You don't like AGW because you disagree with the politics of many of its
supporters. You have absolutely no idea what the real truth is. You're
like a child.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver