"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

It appears that one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is
that global warming stopped in 1998.


Raising hand I have a question! Are you the opinion that there could
never be any information which would convince you that we *are*
contributing to global warming, and might want to change a few living
habits?

There is no information at this time that would convince me that global
warming is a man made phenomena.

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy. Your
doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him won't believe it's
dangerous until he shows you a petri dish on his desk containing a tumor,
from your head, the size of a bran muffin. Of course, by that time, you'd be
so messed up that you won't be able to comment on what you're seeing.




The constant cycles of cooling and warming has occurred for millions of
years. Why is the fact that we are in a heightened solar flare cycle and
both the Earth and Mars are getting warmer not of interest to you?

Absolutely everything is of interest to me. This is why you and I are so
different.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

It appears that one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is
that global warming stopped in 1998.


Raising hand I have a question! Are you the opinion that there
could never be any information which would convince you that we *are*
contributing to global warming, and might want to change a few living
habits?

There is no information at this time that would convince me that global
warming is a man made phenomena.

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy.
Your doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him won't believe it's
dangerous until he shows you a petri dish on his desk containing a tumor,
from your head, the size of a bran muffin. Of course, by that time, you'd
be so messed up that you won't be able to comment on what you're seeing.

No, the analogy should be; You have headaches and one doctor says you have
a brain tumor even though it doesn't show up on a CT scan, "it's too small"
says the doctor "to show up on a scan at this time but it will kill you if
left untreated". You go for a second opinion and that doctor asks about
your lifestyle, does and in-depth study and concludes that it's probably
related to your job as an amusement ride inspector but to be on the safe
side you should get a CT scan every 6 months for 2 years to be sure. You
can't quit your job ( you have a family to support) so you follow the second
doctors advice.

Doug, you call the second doctor a quack when that IS the reasonable choice.
The first doctor MAY be right but the evidence is not all in. There may be
a tumor caused by insult but it's not going to be malignant, it's not going
to grow or metastasize.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

It appears that one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is
that global warming stopped in 1998.


Raising hand I have a question! Are you the opinion that there
could never be any information which would convince you that we *are*
contributing to global warming, and might want to change a few living
habits?

There is no information at this time that would convince me that global
warming is a man made phenomena.

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy.
Your doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him won't believe it's
dangerous until he shows you a petri dish on his desk containing a tumor,
from your head, the size of a bran muffin. Of course, by that time, you'd
be so messed up that you won't be able to comment on what you're seeing.

No, the analogy should be; You have headaches and one doctor says you
have a brain tumor even though it doesn't show up on a CT scan, "it's too
small" says the doctor "to show up on a scan at this time but it will kill
you if left untreated". You go for a second opinion and that doctor asks
about your lifestyle, does and in-depth study and concludes that it's
probably related to your job as an amusement ride inspector but to be on
the safe side you should get a CT scan every 6 months for 2 years to be
sure. You can't quit your job ( you have a family to support) so you
follow the second doctors advice.

Doug, you call the second doctor a quack when that IS the reasonable
choice. The first doctor MAY be right but the evidence is not all in.
There may be a tumor caused by insult but it's not going to be malignant,
it's not going to grow or metastasize.


Interesting analogy, Jeff, but doctor #2 hasn't suggested any behavioral
changes. That would complete the picture.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

It appears that one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is
that global warming stopped in 1998.


Raising hand I have a question! Are you the opinion that there
could never be any information which would convince you that we *are*
contributing to global warming, and might want to change a few living
habits?

There is no information at this time that would convince me that global
warming is a man made phenomena.

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy.
Your doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him won't believe it's
dangerous until he shows you a petri dish on his desk containing a
tumor, from your head, the size of a bran muffin. Of course, by that
time, you'd be so messed up that you won't be able to comment on what
you're seeing.

No, the analogy should be; You have headaches and one doctor says you
have a brain tumor even though it doesn't show up on a CT scan, "it's too
small" says the doctor "to show up on a scan at this time but it will
kill you if left untreated". You go for a second opinion and that doctor
asks about your lifestyle, does and in-depth study and concludes that
it's probably related to your job as an amusement ride inspector but to
be on the safe side you should get a CT scan every 6 months for 2 years
to be sure. You can't quit your job ( you have a family to support) so
you follow the second doctors advice.

Doug, you call the second doctor a quack when that IS the reasonable
choice. The first doctor MAY be right but the evidence is not all in.
There may be a tumor caused by insult but it's not going to be malignant,
it's not going to grow or metastasize.


Interesting analogy, Jeff, but doctor #2 hasn't suggested any behavioral
changes. That would complete the picture.

"Behavioral changes?" What behavioral changes can effect the growth of an
existing brain tumor?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

It appears that one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is
that global warming stopped in 1998.


Raising hand I have a question! Are you the opinion that there
could never be any information which would convince you that we *are*
contributing to global warming, and might want to change a few living
habits?

There is no information at this time that would convince me that
global warming is a man made phenomena.

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy.
Your doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him won't believe
it's dangerous until he shows you a petri dish on his desk containing a
tumor, from your head, the size of a bran muffin. Of course, by that
time, you'd be so messed up that you won't be able to comment on what
you're seeing.

No, the analogy should be; You have headaches and one doctor says you
have a brain tumor even though it doesn't show up on a CT scan, "it's
too small" says the doctor "to show up on a scan at this time but it
will kill you if left untreated". You go for a second opinion and that
doctor asks about your lifestyle, does and in-depth study and concludes
that it's probably related to your job as an amusement ride inspector
but to be on the safe side you should get a CT scan every 6 months for 2
years to be sure. You can't quit your job ( you have a family to
support) so you follow the second doctors advice.

Doug, you call the second doctor a quack when that IS the reasonable
choice. The first doctor MAY be right but the evidence is not all in.
There may be a tumor caused by insult but it's not going to be
malignant, it's not going to grow or metastasize.


Interesting analogy, Jeff, but doctor #2 hasn't suggested any behavioral
changes. That would complete the picture.

"Behavioral changes?" What behavioral changes can effect the growth of an
existing brain tumor?


You're right. Nothing affects the growth of cells, cancerous or otherwise.
How silly of thousands of researchers to waste time meddling in the
inevitable.

Bert Robbins wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

It appears that one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is
that global warming stopped in 1998.


Raising hand I have a question! Are you the opinion that there
could never be any information which would convince you that we *are*
contributing to global warming, and might want to change a few living
habits?

There is no information at this time that would convince me that global
warming is a man made phenomena.

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy.
Your doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him won't believe it's
dangerous until he shows you a petri dish on his desk containing a
tumor, from your head, the size of a bran muffin. Of course, by that
time, you'd be so messed up that you won't be able to comment on what
you're seeing.

No, the analogy should be; You have headaches and one doctor says you
have a brain tumor even though it doesn't show up on a CT scan, "it's too
small" says the doctor "to show up on a scan at this time but it will
kill you if left untreated". You go for a second opinion and that doctor
asks about your lifestyle, does and in-depth study and concludes that
it's probably related to your job as an amusement ride inspector but to
be on the safe side you should get a CT scan every 6 months for 2 years
to be sure. You can't quit your job ( you have a family to support) so
you follow the second doctors advice.

Doug, you call the second doctor a quack when that IS the reasonable
choice. The first doctor MAY be right but the evidence is not all in.
There may be a tumor caused by insult but it's not going to be malignant,
it's not going to grow or metastasize.


Interesting analogy, Jeff, but doctor #2 hasn't suggested any behavioral
changes. That would complete the picture.

"Behavioral changes?" What behavioral changes can effect the growth of an
existing brain tumor?

Hmm, I'd think that taking the medication your doctor prescribed, as
opposed to hanging at the corner smoking crack would 1. effect the
growth of the tumor because that's what the doctor prescribed the
medicine for, and 2. would be a behavioral change.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy.
Your doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him ........

HA!!

Crapola, Dougie-Boy! That's not an analogy, it's a High School debating
trick