Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Now that's what I call "fair & balanced." Find a scientist
who thinks global warming is not happening, and quote him so
extensively that he says right out in so many words that he
is making these statements for political reasons, not out of
scientific validity.

Yeppur, if you want ideology to drive all decisions, and
throw facts out the window, then this is the way to go.

Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...

DSK

You wrote:
Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...


Sean Corbett wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...06/04/09/do090
7.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

ERROR 404 FILE NOT FOUND

OTOH it's pretty easy to find the same type of
partisan-inspired screeching about increased snowfall &
growing glaciers by a simple Google search. For example:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

"Think about that. Snow is accumulating over an area bigger
than the continental
United States. How in the world are sea levels supposed to
rise, if so much moisture
is getting locked up on land as ice? (They're not.)"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4693409.stm


Problem: the referenced article is about a new Antarctic
science station design and doesn't say a thing about
increasing snow accumulation.

DSK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...06/04/09/do090
7.xml&Sheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html


Gene Kearns wrote:
Leave it to old Sean to de-politicize the matter by posting editorial
content from a rag whose combination of personal links between the
paper's editorial team and the leadership of the Conservative Party,
in concert with the paper's influence over Conservative activists,
results in the paper often being jokingly referred to as the
Torygraph.

Yep. That's scientific!

The funny thing is that while a large body of scientific
evidence does point to global warming, it's causes and
effects are less clear.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single person or entity who says
either:
1- it's not happening
2- it might be happening, but if it is, man's activities
have nothing to do with it

that says so from scientific observation & reasoning, but
always (so far) from political conviction. There may be one
or two out there, but so far we haven't heard from them.
What would a logical person conclude from this fact?

DSK

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:38:17 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Now that's what I call "fair & balanced." Find a scientist
who thinks global warming is not happening, and quote him so
extensively that he says right out in so many words that he
is making these statements for political reasons, not out of
scientific validity.

Yeppur, if you want ideology to drive all decisions, and
throw facts out the window, then this is the way to go.

Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...

DSK

'a.politics' is empty.
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:38:17 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Now that's what I call "fair & balanced." Find a scientist
who thinks global warming is not happening, and quote him so
extensively that he says right out in so many words that he
is making these statements for political reasons, not out of
scientific validity.

Yeppur, if you want ideology to drive all decisions, and
throw facts out the window, then this is the way to go.

Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...

DSK

'a.politics' is empty.
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

So why post there? Won't be read.

ERROR 404 FILE NOT FOUND


Sean Corbett wrote:
Your inability to navigate the internet is not my problem.


Yeah, we all know you're a nice guy.

Try these. They're two edits of the same source material, but one has to
wonder how countless media reports simply take the number this expert
reports each year and adds in their own editorial commentary which TOTALLY
CONTRADICTS the actual data Gray has dedicated his entire career to.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...g/14744238.htm

So, the dad-gum libby-rull fag-lovin' traitors in the U.S.
gummint have cut off this scientists funding, and you say
he's an unbiased source?

Wait a minute, the Forces of Good(tm) have been in control
of the U.S. government for at least the past 5 years... who
exactly is this guy mad at? In any event, you're just
helping to prove my earlier point: that the ones who say
global warming ain't so are motivated by politics, not
science (at least, all the ones presented so far).

Sorry, I didn't mean to laugh out loud when you're trying to
be serious.

DSK

Sorry, I didn't mean to laugh out loud when you're trying to
be serious.


Sean Corbett wrote:
The track record of your posts indicates you've never attempted to be
serious. Or that you're too mentally challenged TO be serious. Either
way, thanks for admitting publicly that which has been known for some time.


I'm serious about BOATS.
Meanwhile, why should I take you seriously when you cannot
prove the simplest and most basic of your statements?

Meanwhile, I'd like to see your credentials which equal or exceed Dr.
Gray's. Fill in this URL: http://_________________________

Do you really think that Dr Gray's scientific credentials
matter one tiny bit when he says right up front that his
motivation is political?

Can you read your own references?

DSK

Do you really think that Dr Gray's scientific credentials
matter one tiny bit when he says right up front that his
motivation is political?


Sean Corbett wrote:
He says nothing of the sort, imbecile.

Why are you calling me names when you're the one that can't
read?

Impressive way of carrying on a debate, yessiree. Almost as
impressive as when you demand that other people answer your
oversimplified & irrelevant rhetorical questions, then
refuse to answer any questions yourself. Good going, comrade!

DSK

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:42:39 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:38:17 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Now that's what I call "fair & balanced." Find a scientist
who thinks global warming is not happening, and quote him so
extensively that he says right out in so many words that he
is making these statements for political reasons, not out of
scientific validity.

Yeppur, if you want ideology to drive all decisions, and
throw facts out the window, then this is the way to go.

Meanwhile, let's take a survey of how many glaciers have
grown over the past 50 years, vs how many have shrunk... or
not...

DSK

'a.politics' is empty.
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

So why post there? Won't be read.


Gosh...and I bet it wouldn't be followed by a lot of name-calling either!

What a concept!
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:


Do you really think that Dr Gray's scientific credentials
matter one tiny bit when he says right up front that his
motivation is political?

Sean Corbett wrote:

He says nothing of the sort, imbecile.

Why are you calling me names when you're the one that can't
read?

Impressive way of carrying on a debate, yessiree. Almost as
impressive as when you demand that other people answer your
oversimplified & irrelevant rhetorical questions, then
refuse to answer any questions yourself. Good going, comrade!


http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...g/14744238.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Now what exactly is the quote where "he says right up front that his
motivation is political"?

"It's about politics. . ." Of course he was pointing out that those on
the OTHER SIDE were motivated by politics. Not Dr. Gray!

Let's look at some mo
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I
don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very
slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is
not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from
now, . . ."

Main article: Truthiness
defined as the quality by which one purports to know something
emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or intellectual
examination.