Earth in the Balance? Nope.
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Dec 2009 18:32 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:17:50 -0500, tak wrote: > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.12.19.41.28.710279(a)e86.GTS... >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:02:15 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:48:58 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>Even the Climate Change crowd doesn't believe that. >>>> >>>>How do we know? >>>> >>>>Because if the Believers were truly convinced that there actually was a >>>>serious risk of imminent death and destruction from man-made Climate >>>>Change, they'd be very willing to listen to all arguments, whatever the >>>>source. >>>> >>>>They'd readily release all their raw data, all their statistical >>>>methodology, and all their computer modeling code. >>>> >>>>They'd carefully consider all the evidence presented by the skeptics, >>>>and would work eagerly with those who had differing opinions. >>>> >>>>Since the consequence of being wrong would be fatal, they would do all >>>>this because they would be terribly afraid they might be wrong. >>>> >>>>The fact that they have not -- and won't -- do any of those things, can >>>>only have one meaning: That there is no risk to the earth, or the life >>>>upon it, from Climate Change. >>> >>> Plus, they are not all moving to Denver or towns higher in >>> altitude..... >> >> When does the exodus from FLA begin? >> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails You already said that. I said: The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts,
From: tak on 12 Dec 2009 20:44 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.12.23.31.59.710926(a)e86.GTS... > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:17:50 -0500, tak wrote: > >> >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.12.19.41.28.710279(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:02:15 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:48:58 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Even the Climate Change crowd doesn't believe that. >>>>> >>>>>How do we know? >>>>> >>>>>Because if the Believers were truly convinced that there actually was a >>>>>serious risk of imminent death and destruction from man-made Climate >>>>>Change, they'd be very willing to listen to all arguments, whatever the >>>>>source. >>>>> >>>>>They'd readily release all their raw data, all their statistical >>>>>methodology, and all their computer modeling code. >>>>> >>>>>They'd carefully consider all the evidence presented by the skeptics, >>>>>and would work eagerly with those who had differing opinions. >>>>> >>>>>Since the consequence of being wrong would be fatal, they would do all >>>>>this because they would be terribly afraid they might be wrong. >>>>> >>>>>The fact that they have not -- and won't -- do any of those things, can >>>>>only have one meaning: That there is no risk to the earth, or the life >>>>>upon it, from Climate Change. >>>> >>>> Plus, they are not all moving to Denver or towns higher in >>>> altitude..... >>> >>> When does the exodus from FLA begin? >>> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails > > You already said that. I said: > > The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private > doubts, > If they didn't harbor doubts, and try to match theory to data, they'd be as smug and useless as the deniers are. Of all the possible factors contributing to global warming, the only one we have any real influence over is the manmade factor-- the very one you are adamant in denying.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Dec 2009 20:58 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:44:52 -0500, tak wrote: >> You already said that. I said: >> >> The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored >> private doubts, >> > If they didn't harbor doubts, and try to match theory to data, they'd be > as smug and useless as the deniers are. You're quite wrong here. They would be as smug and useless as the insistors. TRY having a meaningful debate with someone who swallows what the Politicians tell them. They are so closed-minded it's unbelievable. Especially in light that there are far more Geologists that share my view than the "Earth is burning up" crowd. I go out and talk to Geologists. A lot of Geologists. It's more than 50% against the "Global Warming" crowd. Really.
From: tak on 12 Dec 2009 21:48 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.13.01.58.11.594453(a)e86.GTS... > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:44:52 -0500, tak wrote: > >>> You already said that. I said: >>> >>> The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored >>> private doubts, >>> >> If they didn't harbor doubts, and try to match theory to data, they'd be >> as smug and useless as the deniers are. > > You're quite wrong here. > > They would be as smug and useless as the insistors. > TRY having a meaningful debate with someone who swallows what the > Politicians tell them. They are so closed-minded it's unbelievable. > > Especially in light that there are far more Geologists that share my view > than the "Earth is burning up" crowd. > > I go out and talk to Geologists. A lot of Geologists. It's more than 50% > against the "Global Warming" crowd. > > Really. > Maybe you need to broaden your circle of contacts.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Dec 2009 22:11
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:48:54 -0500, tak wrote: > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.13.01.58.11.594453(a)e86.GTS... >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:44:52 -0500, tak wrote: >> >>>> You already said that. I said: >>>> >>>> The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored >>>> private doubts, >>>> >>> If they didn't harbor doubts, and try to match theory to data, they'd >>> be as smug and useless as the deniers are. >> >> You're quite wrong here. >> >> They would be as smug and useless as the insistors. TRY having a >> meaningful debate with someone who swallows what the Politicians tell >> them. They are so closed-minded it's unbelievable. >> >> Especially in light that there are far more Geologists that share my >> view than the "Earth is burning up" crowd. >> >> I go out and talk to Geologists. A lot of Geologists. It's more than 50% >> against the "Global Warming" crowd. >> >> Really. >> > Maybe you need to broaden your circle of contacts. Nah. I think UMASS, Amherst College, Hampshire College and Smith College are just fine. Thanks for your concern, anyway. I have a great variety to pick brains from. Most of them don't believe in Global Warming, and think it was concocted. Works for me. Most say what I say: It's going to get real cold soon (geologically speaking). |