basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

? wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...



When you give me your evidence backing up YOUR statements that:
1. Global warming is "all mother nature (not humans)
It is IMPOSSIBLE for our activities to NOT have an effect on global
warming. Anyone who wasn't picking their nose all through high
school
physics is aware of this fact.
Please quantify the HUMAN effect.
He can't quantify the human effect becasue there is not informaiton
from
observation to forum a consensus on the human effect of the global
warming
equation.

This discussion is not about HOW MUCH effect. It's about a simple
idea: Do
we have any effect greater than none, or not. We have to conduct this
discussion in baby steps, for reasons obvious to everyone except
those who
require the baby steps.
The effect that we, the human race, have upon earth's global warming is
statistically insignificant, when compared to other forces at play in
the whole global warming of planets issue.
Proof? Let's see those university studies that prove the above
sentence.

The fact that you attribute so much effect to humans shows that rather
than having your finger up your nose in high school physics class you
instead had your head up your ass.
Petty and childish name calling and silly insults certainly clears up
the issue, huh?

The KING has spoken. Thanks, Kevin.
Kevin will be back on the newsgroup Monday morning, expect a snide
retort then.
Bert, care to take the $5000 challenge to prove that I'm not Kevin? Put
up or shut up.

Sure, you go first and if I believe you I might give you $5.00.

What's the matter, not willing to risk the money, little guy? If you
are so damned sure of yourself, there is no risk. Put up or shut up.


Why are you so hung up on $5000? If it is the principle of the thing
then a bet of $1 should suffice.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:20:07 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Why are you so hung up on $5000? If it is the principle of the thing
then a bet of $1 should suffice.

The cause is the Breast Cancer Foundation, to which $5000 means more than
$1,
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:20:07 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Why are you so hung up on $5000? If it is the principle of the thing
then a bet of $1 should suffice.

The cause is the Breast Cancer Foundation, to which $5000 means more than
$1,

I have numerous other charities that I contribute too for specific reasons.

Kevin is trying to bully people into a contribution under the guise of a
wager.

If Kevin is really interested in proving me wrong then he will be
willing to make a gentleman's bet of $1.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:42:37 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:20:07 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Why are you so hung up on $5000? If it is the principle of the thing
then a bet of $1 should suffice.

The cause is the Breast Cancer Foundation, to which $5000 means more than
$1,

I have numerous other charities that I contribute too for specific reasons.

Kevin is trying to bully people into a contribution under the guise of a
wager.

If Kevin is really interested in proving me wrong then he will be
willing to make a gentleman's bet of $1.


Nope. If I were bk, I'd hold out for the $5000. If you're sure of yourself,
what've you got to lose? If you're not sure, then maybe it's just
name-calling.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

you're absolutely right John, especially for your daughters cause.
Agreed! $5K IS worth more than a buck.

but his name isn't......



JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:20:07 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Why are you so hung up on $5000? If it is the principle of the thing
then a bet of $1 should suffice.

The cause is the Breast Cancer Foundation, to which $5000 means more than
$1,
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On 15 Jul 2006 12:51:52 -0700, wrote:

you're absolutely right John, especially for your daughters cause.
Agreed! $5K IS worth more than a buck.

but his name isn't......



JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:20:07 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Why are you so hung up on $5000? If it is the principle of the thing
then a bet of $1 should suffice.

The cause is the Breast Cancer Foundation, to which $5000 means more than
$1,


But...the money is only payable if he loses!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

? wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...



When you give me your evidence backing up YOUR statements that:
1. Global warming is "all mother nature (not humans)
It is IMPOSSIBLE for our activities to NOT have an effect on global
warming. Anyone who wasn't picking their nose all through high
school
physics is aware of this fact.
Please quantify the HUMAN effect.
He can't quantify the human effect becasue there is not informaiton
from
observation to forum a consensus on the human effect of the global
warming
equation.

This discussion is not about HOW MUCH effect. It's about a simple
idea: Do
we have any effect greater than none, or not. We have to conduct this
discussion in baby steps, for reasons obvious to everyone except
those who
require the baby steps.
The effect that we, the human race, have upon earth's global warming is
statistically insignificant, when compared to other forces at play in
the whole global warming of planets issue.
Proof? Let's see those university studies that prove the above
sentence.

The fact that you attribute so much effect to humans shows that rather
than having your finger up your nose in high school physics class you
instead had your head up your ass.
Petty and childish name calling and silly insults certainly clears up
the issue, huh?

The KING has spoken. Thanks, Kevin.
Kevin will be back on the newsgroup Monday morning, expect a snide
retort then.
Bert, care to take the $5000 challenge to prove that I'm not Kevin? Put
up or shut up.

Sure, you go first and if I believe you I might give you $5.00.

What's the matter, not willing to risk the money, little guy? If you
are so damned sure of yourself, there is no risk. Put up or shut up.


Why are you so hung up on $5000? If it is the principle of the thing
then a bet of $1 should suffice.

Because I think it's high time you paid for your ignorance.