Global Warming The debbil made me do it

"John T" wrote in
:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


...the belief that virtually all the
active geo-scientists in the world...

Who's telling you about this consensus?

Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands
"proof" in that way. And this proof that is demanded is never
defined.

Not at all. I'll even settle for a realistic theory (like Darwin's)
with real data to demonstrate it without needing a lot of assumptions
to make the result come out in a predetermined way.

Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've
already convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the
world's scientists to trick you, you are way too far gone.
"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and
remember the difference."
- Clive James

Hehe. You're funny. Truly, you brought a smile to my day.

You're just proving that nobody likes a skeptic - regardless of the
skeptic's position. "Dare not question what we tell you, heretic!"

Thats not the way it is at all. The only difference between your
position and the position of the intelligent design adherents is that
you're probably not invested in having to believe in divine creation but
you do have a major investment in the other.
IOW you are starting from a political position in regards ecological
damage. Science demands you go where the data leads you. You try and
lead it and you just end up blind.





Bertie

"John T" wrote:

...the belief that virtually all the
active geo-scientists in the world...

Who's telling you about this consensus?

I've already posted a list of the major professional scientific organizations
which have issued position papers acknowledging the fact of anthropogenic
climate change. Do you have an alternate list?

Only someone with an incomplete understanding of science demands
"proof" in that way. And this proof that is demanded is never
defined.

Not at all. I'll even settle for a realistic theory (like Darwin's) with
real data to demonstrate it without needing a lot of assumptions to make the
result come out in a predetermined way.

You sound just like a creationist. There are mountains of data and hundreds
(thousands?) of peer reviewed research papers supporting the science behind
AGW.

Oh, I seriously doubt I could budge you on this issue. If you've
already convinced yourself that communists are manipulating the
world's scientists to trick you, you are way too far gone.
"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and
remember the difference."
- Clive James

Hehe. You're funny. Truly, you brought a smile to my day.

You're just proving that nobody likes a skeptic - regardless of the
skeptic's position. "Dare not question what we tell you, heretic!"

Don't give yourself airs.

If you were a true skeptic, you wouldn't fall for crap like the "scientists
were all hysterical about global cooling in the '70s" argument, or even worse,
the "CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere" argument. A very little checking
on your part would have revealed to you that you were being bull****ted.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


I've already posted a list of the major professional scientific
organizations which have issued position papers acknowledging the
fact of anthropogenic climate change. Do you have an alternate list?

*That* list is the consensus you speak of? Oh. Well. I *must* be wrong,
then.

I guess I could quickly compile a list of anti-AGW peers of your peers, but
I seriously doubt the effort is worth it since you're so tied to your own
belief system.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

On Mar 8, 12:40 pm, "John T" wrote:

The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However, nobody
has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global climate change.
Because that proof has been demanded and is unavailable, the AGW crowd trots
out the Precautionary Principle - "just in case we're right." (And no, I
don't think taking hugely expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good
cause.)


Well said.


Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 8, 12:40 pm, "John T" wrote:

The point still remains: Temperatures have warmed slightly. However,
nobody has *proved* human activity has caused or will cause global
climate change. Because that proof has been demanded and is
unavailable, the AGW crowd trots out the Precautionary Principle -
"just in case we're right." (And no, I don't think taking hugely
expensive "precautions" is worthwhile without good cause.)


Well said.

All cherry picked to support a position.


Bertie

"John T" wrote in
m:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
hysteria.


**** you. I'm not hysterical.


Bertie

In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
the Bunyip wrote:

"John T" wrote in
m:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
hysteria.


**** you. I'm not hysterical.

Bertie

NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--
PJR :-)

"Peter J Ross" wrote in message
...
In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
the Bunyip wrote:

"John T" wrote in
m:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
hysteria.


**** you. I'm not hysterical.

Bertie

NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both of
those posts with the Tourette Bot

However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
worth setting up.

In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:12:41 +1100, Kadaitcha Man
wrote:

"Peter J Ross" wrote in message
...
In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
the Bunyip wrote:

"John T" wrote in
m:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
hysteria.


**** you. I'm not hysterical.

Bertie

NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both of
those posts with the Tourette Bot

However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
worth setting up.

You might enjoy this:
http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/quackify.vim.bz2

And this is my working copy:
http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/....vim-alpha.bz2

And this is a simplified, generic version that isn't customised for
Will Dockery:
http://pjr.lasnobberia.co.uk/script/****ify.vim.bz2

In case you're wondering where I got the idea of transforming kooks'
posts in order to make fun of them, I got the idea from you, of
course.

If you were still alive I'd thank you properly.

--
PJR :-)

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

"Peter J Ross" wrote in message
...
In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:06:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie
the Bunyip wrote:

"John T" wrote in
m:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
wishful thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Yup. That's what the AGW crowd uses as justification for their
hysteria.


**** you. I'm not hysterical.

Bertie

NEITHER AM I AND I'LL SUE ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's moments like these I wish I had the Berserker running. I'd hit both of
those posts with the Tourette Bot

However I'm only in Oz for a few days to visit my kids so it's not been
worth setting up.

Ah well, perhaps Fred will return on a future date.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco