Global Warming The debbil made me do it

"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!"

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

"John T" wrote:

http://www.sourcewatch.org
http://www.realclimate.org

Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you any more
than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of the fallacy
of your belief in AGW.

Invalid comparison.

junkscience is run by a lobbyist with a documented history of creating
disinformation in the service of tobacco, chemical and oil corporations.
Although Milloy frequently represents himself as an expert on scientific
matters, he is not a scientist himself. He has never published original
research in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

You may disagree with the scientists on RealClimate, but their reputations in
their profession are intact despite years of slander (against Mann, in
particular) by people like Milloy.

On Mar 8, 2:48 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"John T" wrote:
http://www.sourcewatch.org
http://www.realclimate.org

Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you any more
than usinghttp://junkscience.comwould help me convince you of the fallacy
of your belief in AGW.

Invalid comparison.

junkscience is run by a lobbyist with a documented history of creating
disinformation in the service of tobacco, chemical and oil corporations.
Although Milloy frequently represents himself as an expert on scientific
matters, he is not a scientist himself. He has never published original
research in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

You may disagree with the scientists on RealClimate, but their reputations in
their profession are intact despite years of slander (against Mann, in
particular) by people like Milloy.

I'm learning more -- such as -- your guys are pure, unsullied by
interests, while anyone who dares proffer contrary data must be a
minion of the evil capitalists...

I admire your expertise in the resorting to the ad hominem argument.

OK, done for now. heading outside to chop down a tree and burn it for
heat.

Dan

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


Invalid comparison.

Not at all. All those sites are designed specifically to promote a
particular point of view and not provide balanced reporting of raw data.

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

"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

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
:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


http://www.sourcewatch.org
http://www.realclimate.org

Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you any
more than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of
the fallacy of your belief in AGW.



it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced. I'm pretty much resigned to
watching idiots like you sell my kids future down the Suwanee...

At least I'll have the pleasure of telling you I told you so in the
fulness of time..
Not much, but it will have to do.

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

"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.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

My first bike was good fun, too. A '59 Cushman Eagle..

Heh.

Hadn't thought about those in a long time.

One of my friends used his on his paper route. Another friend tried to beat a
train on his and got smushed.

They were *the* cool thing to have in my neighborhood. I yearned desperately
for one but only got to ride on the back of a few.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM