Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Tim wrote:

basskisser wrote:

And in case you didn't read, or comprhend,

um, hmm

Awe, how cute. A typo has Tim all in a girlie giggle.


when did "um, hmm become a "girlie giggle"?


Relax. Simple boys are easily amused.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL


Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

Thanks for the post, SWS, but aren't you the "STOP IT" guy? We all know
the boy lives to pick fights here and will spin them at will until the
other party is exhausted.

Dan

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Harry Krause wrote:

On 12/12/2006 5:57 PM, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

Tom,
You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes
Schnapps is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his
point stated Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be
considered a whiskey.

Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do
you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy



And thus "Reggie" continues in his flaming ass ways...

I don't know how you define a "flame" but this isn't even close.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:07:47 -0500, Dan
wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:



http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL


Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

Thanks for the post, SWS, but aren't you the "STOP IT" guy? We all know
the boy lives to pick fights here and will spin them at will until the
other party is exhausted.


See any names called in that?

It's just a counter to a sfgate article that has...um....mistakes.

Nope. I was referring to Kevin, not you.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:48:18 -0500, "ACP" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

Oh boy! Stirring the pot. 8)

Not at all.

Just pointing out that science is science. And these guys know ice
science.

Some folks don't like to have anything pointed out to them, credible science
or not.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:57:59 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

Tom,
You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps
is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated
Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey.

Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do
you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy


I believe that, despite opinions to the contrary, that Bassy can, and
does, look at contrarian technical evidence presented without rancor
and discuss it rationally.

And you believe in Santa Claus too.....right?????

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:57:59 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php
Tom,
You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps
is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated
Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey.

Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do
you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy

I believe that, despite opinions to the contrary, that Bassy can, and
does, look at contrarian technical evidence presented without rancor
and discuss it rationally.

There goes another Diet Coke all over the keyboard....

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:57:59 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL
Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php
Tom,
You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps
is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated
Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey.

Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do
you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy

I believe that, despite opinions to the contrary, that Bassy can, and
does, look at contrarian technical evidence presented without rancor
and discuss it rationally.
Tom,
I wish you the best of luck. It will be interesting to see this progress.

Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

When you said it.

right

Glad you agree!

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Where you are dead wrong is your belief that the "science" in the
article came from sfgate. It didn't. Try reading again. You'll see
where it came from, including NASA. As for your article, what makes you
think that THAT particular article is good, sound science, but articles
to the contrary from other scholars and study centers is not? Just
because it doesn't fit your party's agenda, perhaps?