|
Settled science? HA!!
wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 8:34 am, HK wrote: wrote: But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it." I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible buffoons. The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth. Are there any "douche bags" on the left? Ms. Clinton comes to mind. |
Settled science? HA!!
|
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 9:11 am, HK wrote:
wrote: On Dec 20, 8:34 am, HK wrote: wrote: But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it." I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible buffoons. The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth. Are there any "douche bags" on the left? Sure, but I don't spend any time listening to them, either. But there are far more on the right, and they are far more successful, because there is a large audience on the right for the sort of "put down crap" delivered by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, et al. The righties apparently need their daily fix of hate.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, who are they, name some names? |
Settled science? HA!!
HK wrote:
wrote: But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it." I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible buffoons. What is your definition of a "responsible conservative?" What characteristics do you use to identify a "responsible conservative?" The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth. Limbaugh is funny and entertaining. Coulter is funny and entertaining. Malkin is funny and entertaining. Hannity is a pompous ass. O'Reilly is a pompous ass. |
Settled science? HA!!
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:22:00 -0500, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 Another qualified voice of reason. Refreshing. Now, if we can stop the madness before we all go broke trying to fix a nonexistent problem. Eisboch Almost everyone who has the contrary opinion on our impact on global warming is a Republican. That tells me what I need to know about the "opposition." And almost everyone who has joined the Al Gore "Send Your Money" bandwagon is a Democrat. That should tell you something also. -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... It's amazing the number of people who preach that man is solely responsible for global warming and that many billions of dollars in the right pockets will stop it. *That's* what's amazing! -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
"BAR" wrote in message . .. HK wrote: wrote: But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it." I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible buffoons. What is your definition of a "responsible conservative?" What characteristics do you use to identify a "responsible conservative?" The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth. Limbaugh is funny and entertaining. Coulter is funny and entertaining. Malkin is funny and entertaining. Hannity is a pompous ass. O'Reilly is a pompous ass. Thank god Imus is back.;-) |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 1:02�am, WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. There you go, JAFM. A good example of "there's no proof that earth is even warming at all", and right here in the NG. I wouldn't be surprised to find that almost 1/3 of Americans agree with that sentiment. I disagree, to the point where I believe the earth is in a warming trend. I also believe that warming and cooling trends have long been a part of the natural cycle. My concern is that we might warm too much and too quickly; and *if* that's a possibility we should be concerned. I don't subscribe to the "it's all man's fault" school of thinking, but neither am I prepared at this point to say that we are unable to screw up the climate just as we have screwed up much of the rest of our environment. |
Settled science? HA!!
wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 I've got a question. Why do you take this article as gospel, the end all of all ends? After all, everything Canadian you instantly **** on right here in rec.boats. Then you glean one single article coming from the great white north, and it's the greatest piece ever written! Pretty selective, don't you think? Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty A third of the planet doesn't have electricity. A billion people have no clean water. A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists will make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you care more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying attention to what's going on now? |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:11:18 -0500, HK wrote:
wrote: On Dec 20, 8:34 am, HK wrote: wrote: But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it." I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible buffoons. The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth. Are there any "douche bags" on the left? Sure, but I don't spend any time listening to them, either. But there are far more on the right, and they are far more successful, because there is a large audience on the right for the sort of "put down crap" delivered by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, et al. The righties apparently need their daily fix of hate. I think you should spend at least as much time listening to the left wing douchbags as you do to the ones on the right (which, apparently, is a significant amount). That would truly be the 'fair and balanced' thing to do. Then you'd see why Air America is going out of business. -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 4:50Â*am, wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:26Â*am, Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 8:26Â*pm, wrote: On Dec 19, 11:04Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... Funny, I don't see a lot of folks in that camp, although the Global Taxing advocates keep citing them. I guess sooner or later I will find one. My best guess though is it is more of a talking point to villanize the sceptics.. I guess however if you can keep the arguement there, where there is really no arguement (weather the earth is cycling hotter again or not) you don't have to address the very credible science that says we are not causing it, it's just another cycle... I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. I listen to right-wing talk shows on a regular basis, (20-30 minutes, a couple of times per week). I have heard some of the talk show hosts make the following statements, and every time they do their screeners pass through the predictable 2-3 "confirming" callers that agree with whatever outrageous statement the host made. Two of my favorites heard within the last few months: 1. The liberals deliberately put the temperature probes used to measure global heat trends in the hottest places they could find. Over asphalt parking lots, on the sunny sides of brick buildings, etc. 2. There are a handful of glaciers actually *increasing* in size, and if the whole earth was warming like the tax and spend liberals want us to believe, then no glaciers would be able to grow. (Sometimes there's a carefully selected individual scientist to add some crediblity to the schtick). Not heard on the radio, but heard commonly enough elsewhe "Global warming is bullship".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Stop listening to hate radio then. I deal with rational folks whenever I can. And those quotes supposedly made by one and agreed on by another is not really credible, in fact I suspect the quotes are "representitive" of what you heard, but not what they said...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You've been missing out on the opinions of Rush's fans in this debate? Here's an update: http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/globalwarming.htm Some of my favorites are the two posts from people who claim extensive scientific credentials, (but refuse to disclose their identity). Then there's the guy who wrote: "He put is in charge of the garden, and I don't think He would allow us to screw it up". I need to move to wherever he lives, if he thinks we haven't screwed anything up since the days of the Garden of Eden. :-) |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 10:33 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 I've got a question. Why do you take this article as gospel, the end all of all ends? After all, everything Canadian you instantly **** on right here in rec.boats. Then you glean one single article coming from the great white north, and it's the greatest piece ever written! Pretty selective, don't you think? Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty A third of the planet doesn't have electricity. A billion people have no clean water. A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists will make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you care more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying attention to what's going on now? Your childish and low-life name calling shows that you aren't bright enough to understand an intelligent response, or you're too narrow minded. |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 10:13 am, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... It's amazing the number of people who preach that man is solely responsible for global warming and that many billions of dollars in the right pockets will stop it. *That's* what's amazing! -- John H John, just *who* preaches that man is "solely responsible for global warming"? |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:33:29 GMT, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 I've got a question. Why do you take this article as gospel, the end all of all ends? After all, everything Canadian you instantly **** on right here in rec.boats. Then you glean one single article coming from the great white north, and it's the greatest piece ever written! Pretty selective, don't you think? Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty A third of the planet doesn't have electricity. A billion people have no clean water. A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists will make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you care more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying attention to what's going on now? Sounds very much like Bjorn Lomborg ( http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/ ). When the Senate held their hearings on Global Warming, in which Al Gore was the star, the Democrats walked out when Lomborg came on. That one act said a lot about the Dems and Global Warming. -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:46:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:33 am, "BillP" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 I've got a question. Why do you take this article as gospel, the end all of all ends? After all, everything Canadian you instantly **** on right here in rec.boats. Then you glean one single article coming from the great white north, and it's the greatest piece ever written! Pretty selective, don't you think? Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty A third of the planet doesn't have electricity. A billion people have no clean water. A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists will make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you care more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying attention to what's going on now? Your childish and low-life name calling shows that you aren't bright enough to understand an intelligent response, or you're too narrow minded. Here, Loogy, same question for you but restated: "Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists will make life even worse for all these people, why do you care more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying attention to what's going on now? -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
Jim wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message . .. HK wrote: wrote: But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it." I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible buffoons. What is your definition of a "responsible conservative?" What characteristics do you use to identify a "responsible conservative?" The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth. Limbaugh is funny and entertaining. Coulter is funny and entertaining. Malkin is funny and entertaining. Hannity is a pompous ass. O'Reilly is a pompous ass. Thank god Imus is back.;-) I can't stand Imus, I put him in the Hannity O'Reilly bucket. |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:47:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:13 am, John H. wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... It's amazing the number of people who preach that man is solely responsible for global warming and that many billions of dollars in the right pockets will stop it. *That's* what's amazing! -- John H John, just *who* preaches that man is "solely responsible for global warming"? Whoooosh! -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. For Chuck. Offedred without comment. http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...al/Lmutual.htm |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 8:02Â*am, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. For Chuck. Offedred without comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...l/Lmutual.htm- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not mutually exclusive. Nice site, though. |
Settled science? HA!!
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Jim wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. HK wrote: wrote: But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it." I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible buffoons. What is your definition of a "responsible conservative?" What characteristics do you use to identify a "responsible conservative?" The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth. Limbaugh is funny and entertaining. Coulter is funny and entertaining. Malkin is funny and entertaining. Hannity is a pompous ass. O'Reilly is a pompous ass. Thank god Imus is back.;-) I can't stand Imus, I put him in the Hannity O'Reilly bucket. Imus fills all the buckets. He is a funny, entertaining, pompus ass, among other things. I'd put all the other numbskulls in a bucket with Harry. |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 10:57 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:46:07 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 20, 10:33 am, "BillP" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 I've got a question. Why do you take this article as gospel, the end all of all ends? After all, everything Canadian you instantly **** on right here in rec.boats. Then you glean one single article coming from the great white north, and it's the greatest piece ever written! Pretty selective, don't you think? Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty A third of the planet doesn't have electricity. A billion people have no clean water. A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists will make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you care more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying attention to what's going on now? Your childish and low-life name calling shows that you aren't bright enough to understand an intelligent response, or you're too narrow minded. Here, Loogy, same question for you but restated: "Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists will make life even worse for all these people, why do you care more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying attention to what's going on now? -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I, and a lot of others ARE concerned about what's happening now. Does that somehow negate the effort to give our progeny an environment to live in at least as good as ours? |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 10:58 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:47:41 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 20, 10:13 am, John H. wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... It's amazing the number of people who preach that man is solely responsible for global warming and that many billions of dollars in the right pockets will stop it. *That's* what's amazing! -- John H John, just *who* preaches that man is "solely responsible for global warming"? Whoooosh! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Whoosh, my ass. Did you make that statement or not? Do you believe the statement that YOU wrote, or aren't you a man of conviction? |
Settled science? HA!!
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. For Chuck. Offedred without comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...l/Lmutual.htm- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not mutually exclusive. Nice site, though. No comprende. Parse it out for me please. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote:
WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. Leave it to Wally... :} Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html Or this one. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...179&Item id=1 |
Settled science? HA!!
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote: WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. Leave it to Wally... :} Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html Or this one. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...179&Item id=1 You're just proving my point. Thanks. |
Settled science? HA!!
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote: WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. Leave it to Wally... :} Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html Or this one. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...179&Item id=1 Russians, what do they know about anything? New Zealanders, all they know is sheep. 8-) |
Settled science? HA!!
D.Duck wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote: WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. Leave it to Wally... :} Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html Or this one. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...179&Item id=1 Russians, what do they know about anything? New Zealanders, all they know is sheep. 8-) I know less than nothing about New Zealand, but I am very concerned about what is going on in Russia with Tsar Putin. What he is doing there is a lot more dangerous than the games the leader of Iran plays with the substance-abused brain of George W. Bush. |
Settled science? HA!!
Jim wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Jim wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. HK wrote: wrote: But you don't know what we listen to, and even if you did, you would not listen to it so you would still not know what you are talking about. It's ok Harry, we have gotten kind of used to it." I've seen a few "reich wing radio" types on TV interview shows. They are without exception scum. Note that I am not talking about responsible conservatives espousing their point of view. I see those folks and I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I agree with some of what they say and sometimes I don't. But I don't believe them to be irresponsible buffoons. What is your definition of a "responsible conservative?" What characteristics do you use to identify a "responsible conservative?" The "reich wing radio" types I am talking about the douche bags, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera. Scum of the earth. Limbaugh is funny and entertaining. Coulter is funny and entertaining. Malkin is funny and entertaining. Hannity is a pompous ass. O'Reilly is a pompous ass. Thank god Imus is back.;-) I can't stand Imus, I put him in the Hannity O'Reilly bucket. Imus fills all the buckets. He is a funny, entertaining, pompus ass, among other things. I'd put all the other numbskulls in a bucket with Harry. That would be fun to watch. |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 11:46 am, HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote: WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. Leave it to Wally... :} Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html Or this one. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...t&task=view&id... Russians, what do they know about anything? New Zealanders, all they know is sheep. 8-) I know less than nothing about New Zealand, but I am very concerned about what is going on in Russia with Tsar Putin. What he is doing there is a lot more dangerous than the games the leader of Iran plays with the substance-abused brain of George W. Bush.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - New Zealand, a land where men are men, and sheep are nervous;) |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:29:34 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Dec 20, 1:02?am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. There you go, JAFM. A good example of "there's no proof that earth is even warming at all", and right here in the NG. I wouldn't be surprised to find that almost 1/3 of Americans agree with that sentiment. I disagree, to the point where I believe the earth is in a warming trend. I also believe that warming and cooling trends have long been a part of the natural cycle. My concern is that we might warm too much and too quickly; and *if* that's a possibility we should be concerned. I don't subscribe to the "it's all man's fault" school of thinking, but neither am I prepared at this point to say that we are unable to screw up the climate just as we have screwed up much of the rest of our environment. Overall I agree with your assessment. What is happening, though, is that the economic forces related to the subject is going to hamstring Western economies to the point of deep recession or even total depression. The nubris exhibited by those who believe, despite historical and peer reviewed evidence to the contrary, that mankind is totally responsible is creating a whole disruption in the economy, stifling research into alternative because the money that would normally be available by grants, industrial research and even academic research is being invested in making more money via commodity trading and whole new economies trading carbon credits. The money supply needed to produce new products and science is busy making money in monetary markets. Which doesn't produce anything but money. The rush to ethanol is creating a huge disruption in the food supply chain. This morning I was down at the local farm taking some picutures and conversed with the owner. He showed me his feed bill for his milk cows and beef cattle - he's paying twice what he paid last year and he can't hedge because his suppliers fully expect it to double again before spring. He's seriously thinking of cutting back on his herd because even though beef prices are rising, he can't afford the same size herd because he can't feed them economically. He can't even lock in seed corn prices for another three months - right before planting season. Normally, he's locked in by now for delivery in late March. We're making a huge mistake with this whole rush to mitigate climate change that we can't do anything about. |
Settled science? HA!!
wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 11:46 am, HK wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote: WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. Leave it to Wally... :} Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html Or this one. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...t&task=view&id... Russians, what do they know about anything? New Zealanders, all they know is sheep. 8-) I know less than nothing about New Zealand, but I am very concerned about what is going on in Russia with Tsar Putin. What he is doing there is a lot more dangerous than the games the leader of Iran plays with the substance-abused brain of George W. Bush.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - New Zealand, a land where men are men, and sheep are nervous;) Oh no you di-int! chuckle db |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:37:19 -0500, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote: WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. Leave it to Wally... :} Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html Or this one. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...179&Item id=1 You're just proving my point. Thanks. Typical non-response when facts are presented. -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:46:26 -0500, HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote: WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't even warming at all" category. Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants. There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense. Leave it to Wally... :} Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html Or this one. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...179&Item id=1 Russians, what do they know about anything? New Zealanders, all they know is sheep. 8-) I know less than nothing about New Zealand, but I am very concerned about what is going on in Russia with Tsar Putin. What he is doing there is a lot more dangerous than the games the leader of Iran plays with the substance-abused brain of George W. Bush. He's just doing what Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton would like to do, Harry. -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 8:25Â*am, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. For Chuck. Offedred without comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not mutually exclusive. Nice site, though. No comprende. Parse it out for me please. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global warming. 2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global warming. 3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such thing as global warming. None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group can simultaneously believe any of the three statements. |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:13:27 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Dec 20, 8:25*am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 12:58?am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. For Chuck. Offedred without comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not mutually exclusive. Nice site, though. No comprende. Parse it out for me please. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global warming. 2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global warming. 3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such thing as global warming. None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group can simultaneously believe any of the three statements. I see that a person could be in groups 2 and 3. I don't see how a person could be in 1 and 2, or 1 and 3. If I believed there is no such thing as global warming, then I would not believe that man is causing global warming. -- John H |
Settled science? HA!!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:01:25 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:13:27 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 20, 8:25*am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 12:58?am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. For Chuck. Offedred without comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not mutually exclusive. Nice site, though. No comprende. Parse it out for me please. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global warming. 2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global warming. 3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such thing as global warming. None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group can simultaneously believe any of the three statements. I see that a person could be in groups 2 and 3. I don't see how a person could be in 1 and 2, or 1 and 3. If I believed there is no such thing as global warming, then I would not believe that man is causing global warming. Phil Donohue got a train in Philly, heading for Pittsburgh at a steady 50 mph. Brad Pitt got on a train in Pittsburgh heading to Philly at a steady 45 mph. Both trains left at the same time. Then why is Harrisburg the capital of PA? --Vic |
Settled science? HA!!
On Dec 20, 12:01�pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:13:27 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 20, 8:25�am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message .... On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message .... On Dec 20, 12:58?am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. For Chuck. Offedred without comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not mutually exclusive. Nice site, though. No comprende. Parse it out for me please. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global warming. 2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global warming. 3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such thing as global warming. None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group can simultaneously believe any of the three statements. I see that a person could be in groups 2 and 3. I don't see how a person could be in 1 and 2, or 1 and 3. If I believed there is no such thing as global warming, then I would not believe that man is causing global warming. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Back up a step. I'm not saying that the statements are wrong or right, only that people believe each of the three ideas. That may be where Wally got off the track as well, with his original critcism. 1. Some people believe the earth is round. 2. Some people believe the earth is flat. The earth cannot be both round and flat, but different people can simultaneously hold conflicting opinions regarding the shape of the earth. The statements: 1. The earth is round. 2. The earth is flat *would be* contradictory, but preface each with "some people believe......" and both can be true at the same time. |
Settled science? HA!!
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 8:25 am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are). It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist that the climate is *not* changing at all........... You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as fact by inference. Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-) The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor. The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so many people deny that the climate is changing at all. Three concepts: 1. Some say man is causing climate change 2. Some say man is not causing climate change 3. Some say there is no climate change occuring None of those are mutually exclusive. For Chuck. Offedred without comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not mutually exclusive. Nice site, though. No comprende. Parse it out for me please. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global warming. 2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global warming. 3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such thing as global warming. None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group can simultaneously believe any of the three statements. It's hard to apply boolean (sp) logic to what you think you know about what people believe. But it can certainly be applied to the existance of "global warming". It either exists or it doesn't. Hence mutually exclusive. You talk/write too much. ;-) Merry Christmas |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com