Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?


Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.

I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and
Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start
childish name calling.

Capt John wrote:
FishWisher wrote:
Gosh, wouldn't it be refreshing to have them say, for a change, "We
don't know"? They don't know. I don't know. But I do know they don't
know the temperatures of a few hundred years ago - and certainly not a
few thousand.

I gotta think this whole warming nonsense is nothing more than a tool
for those that wish our technology would just plain stop. Pure
politics.

I am old enough to remember when the same folks were spouting off about
"global cooling". Go ahead - say "I don't know". Yeah, right.

Dale

Dale,

Like you, I remember back in the 70's or 80's all the "experts" were
talking about global cooling, all the news reports about the coming ice
age, it was everywhere. And then the weather started getting warmer,
and they stopped talking about the next ice age, and started talking
about global warming. Didn't they blame it on the same gasses?

I remember when they tried to blame it on Freon getting up there and
destroying the ozone layer. One little problem, Freon's heavier than
air, it stays down here with us, not up in the ozone layer, they
stopped talking about it.

Not true! even though is heavier than air, it will mix and by current,
get into the stratosphere easily, when in it's gasseous state:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env256.htm

wrote:
My need for self expression
Trumps courtesy or discretion
So I'm trollin', trollin',
Trollin' through the newsgroups.

On the other hand, the right wing has succeeded in pushing this country
towards fascism PRECISELY due to people keeping quiet for fear of
offending their neighbors, friends, relatives, fellow newsgroup
posters, etc.

On 23 Jun 2006 12:24:39 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
My need for self expression
Trumps courtesy or discretion
So I'm trollin', trollin',
Trollin' through the newsgroups.

On the other hand, the right wing has succeeded in pushing this country
towards fascism PRECISELY due to people keeping quiet for fear of
offending their neighbors, friends, relatives, fellow newsgroup
posters, etc.

Go to a.politics and yell to your heart's content. Take about a half dozen
folks with you.
--
John H

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

wrote:
wrote:
My need for self expression
Trumps courtesy or discretion
So I'm trollin', trollin',
Trollin' through the newsgroups.

On the other hand, the right wing has succeeded in pushing this country
towards fascism PRECISELY due to people keeping quiet for fear of
offending their neighbors, friends, relatives, fellow newsgroup
posters, etc.


You must be new here. Look back about a year in Google and see what a
mess this NG used to be. Un-fricking-believable. We discovered that it
only took a few people changing behavior to get the group back on
track, and there's always a danger that a few people dedicated to
screwing it back around to a political flame fest might be able to
accomplish that as well.

Please do speak out for your particular political perspectives and
don't let anybody silence or intimidate you.............but just don't
speak out for your particular political perspectives in an
inappropriate venue. Would you stand up in the middle of a Baptist
church service and start reading the Talmud in Hebrew? Probably not.
There's not a darn thing wrong with reading the Talmud in Hebrew,
repeating the Limbaugh "dittohead" talking points of the day, copying
and pasting the current issues list from moveon.org, etc. Just do it
where you should do it, and not where you should not. Please.

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:42:02 -0400, Bert Robbins
wrote:

basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.

Bert, why don't you post where in the NAS's report they have revised
any data from 400 years to 2000 years.

Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and
(dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source.

Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that
the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that
change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a
dis-information section of the RNC?


Since you are relying on them for the "facts," why don't you explain
the accuracy of their article:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....07o4imol.html
which was posted the same day as the NSA report?

No I am not relying upon Brietbart, I am relying upon their sources
which are AP and AFP (http://www.afp.com/english/afp/?pid=history) for
the ariticles I referenced and the one you referenced.
"AFP is the world's oldest established news agency, founded in 1835 by
Charles-Louis Havas, the father of global journalism.
Today, the agency continues to expand its operations worldwide, reaching
thousands of subscribers via radio, television, newspapers and companies
from its main headquarters in Paris and regional centers in Washington,
Hong Kong, Nicosia and Montevideo. All share the same goal: to guarantee
top quality international service tailored to the specific needs of
clients in each region."

They really seem to be challenged by the facts as much as Santorum
was. You guys just don't value fact checking prior to disclosure very
much do you?

Gene you have stuck both feet in your mouth this time. If one of your
left wing buddies had posted eigher

basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.

I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and
Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start
childish name calling.


Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and
(dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source.

Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that
the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that
change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a
dis-information section of the RNC?

OK - let me get this straight:

- If you (and I mean YOU, not "someone") spent time interviewing a
scientist, could you write an article in which you accurately represented
what he had told you?

It's a simple question. Yes, or no.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.

I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and
Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start
childish name calling.


Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement
lately?

You just proved his point, Bertie.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and
(dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source.
Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that
the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that
change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a
dis-information section of the RNC?

OK - let me get this straight:

- If you (and I mean YOU, not "someone") spent time interviewing a
scientist, could you write an article in which you accurately represented
what he had told you?

Yes.

It's a simple question. Yes, or no.

Asked and answered.