|
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!!
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com