"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity.
Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo.
Accu-Weather can be replaced.
Plenty of other weather outfits.

--Vic

Yeah, when I want both sides of an issue I don't turn of FOX where there
are always representatives from both sides, I turn on MSNBC or NPR and
hear both sides from one point of view... That's funny Vic... So answer
the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?


Fox is a fraud. It's not a news channel.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 12/19/09 1:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"I am wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity.
Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo.
Accu-Weather can be replaced.
Plenty of other weather outfits.

--Vic

Yeah, when I want both sides of an issue I don't turn of FOX where there
are always representatives from both sides, I turn on MSNBC or NPR and
hear both sides from one point of view... That's funny Vic... So answer
the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?


Fox is a fraud. It's not a news channel.


Tosk is a fraud. He's not a thinking human.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:09:16 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

So answer the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?

From the back of the Count Chockula cereal box.

Where do you get yours? :)

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:09:16 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

So answer the question Saran didn't, where do you get your news?

From the back of the Count Chockula cereal box.

Where do you get yours? :)

Pffftttt... Fruit Loops

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

I think that was probably a mis-quote.... I don't think *anybody*,
except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause
of "global warming."

That's certainly a mis-quote. No one on the left in this group is
stupid enough to assume man is singularly responsible for global
warming. Maybe a global warming believer on the right said it?

Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the
period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just
stupid.

It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man
couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is
whether man can create a tipping point.

If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the
politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science
going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on.....

Some politicians specialize in getting in the way. I think they've
been referred to as the party of obstruction...

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

I think that was probably a mis-quote....

No - it wasn't. My friend Bassy had it right because I read about this
exchange on a alarmist blog so it's accurate.


I don't think *anybody*,
except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause
of "global warming."

Hmmm - ok, if that's your perception - it's not mine.

Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the
period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just
stupid.

Yep.

It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man
couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is
whether man can create a tipping point.

Well that is the debate and so far, now that the truth is starting to
emerge, it would appear that AGW is a farce.

If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the
politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science
going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on.....

The real honest science is being done by those outside the climate
clique - guys like McIntyre who, oddly, view it the same way you do -
he just wants to get the science right.

Which, when viewed through history's prism, if the way it usually is -
the established "science" is tosed about by mavericks who want to say
"hey - wait a minute".

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:27:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

I think that was probably a mis-quote....

No - it wasn't. My friend Bassy had it right because I read about this
exchange on a alarmist blog so it's accurate.


I don't think *anybody*,
except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause
of "global warming."

Hmmm - ok, if that's your perception - it's not mine.

Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the
period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just
stupid.

Yep.

It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man
couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is
whether man can create a tipping point.

Well that is the debate and so far, now that the truth is starting to
emerge, it would appear that AGW is a farce.

If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the
politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science
going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on.....

The real honest science is being done by those outside the climate
clique - guys like McIntyre who, oddly, view it the same way you do -
he just wants to get the science right.

Which, when viewed through history's prism, if the way it usually is -
the established "science" is tosed about by mavericks who want to say
"hey - wait a minute".

You'll wait for honest data while realists watch the polar caps melt.

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:46:10 -0800, jps wrote:


You'll wait for honest data while realists watch the polar caps melt.

See, that, in itself, is the political talking point. Nobody that has
crap for brains denies that is happening. The "WHY" is what is
important. Good science will tell us whether man is contributing 99%
or 1% to the temperature rise. Neither Hannity nor Gore are going to
give you good science, but if you are having an acute attack of
cognitive dissonance they probably have a temporary cure for that.
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186


You certainly won't get good science from Hannity. He's not interested in
science. He's interested in fear-mongering.

Gore has the facts available, since he actually listens to scientists.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:09:42 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:46:10 -0800, jps wrote:


You'll wait for honest data while realists watch the polar caps melt.

See, that, in itself, is the political talking point. Nobody that has
crap for brains denies that is happening. The "WHY" is what is
important. Good science will tell us whether man is contributing 99%
or 1% to the temperature rise. Neither Hannity nor Gore are going to
give you good science, but if you are having an acute attack of
cognitive dissonance they probably have a temporary cure for that.

No cognitive dissonance. The "good science" argument is a delay
tactic. There's plenty of good science.

If we cannot conclusively prove man has XX% involvement in global
warming, should we simply sit back and do nothing?

That's cognitive dissonance.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:03:26 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:33:22 -0800, jps wrote:

If we cannot conclusively prove man has XX% involvement in global
warming, should we simply sit back and do nothing?

That is like saying, "They didn't tell me where to go, so I don't know
where I'm going, but I've got to leave and hurry to get there..."

Cutting emissions, though, is a good idea, regardless....

Using your logic, we should sit on our hands until its positively
proven we have some net effect on the atmosphere.

In that case, why the hell should we cut emissions? I think we should
bring back all the flourocarbons. I miss 'em.