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.