Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 7, 3:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:b7d4582d-0a7f-4295-a2f4-8581da9e7b05
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
om:



On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
:

On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.

--
Dan

Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which
incontrovertible evidence?

There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.

Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

5 feet in 25?

Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate
Change" crisis of the moment.

Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette,
bjust don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.

We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
colder.

But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

I know.

Bertie

You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?

All the alarmist noise?



Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?

That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea
until they break it.



Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).

"When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of
consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to
avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he
was right. When it comes to the natural sciences consensus is not
science, and science is not consensus."

Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.

Jesus wept.

Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see
evidence and can see the logical result according to the best
information available.

Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that
people get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty
short sighted and narrow view of the investment to boot.

So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence
based on my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no
investment and I'm not crying about the sky falling.

How about you?

Bertie

I'm gonna be crying if the tax burden increases over 50% to fund more
bureaucracy.


Non sequitor and this shows you have little conviction in your argument
if that's your bottom line.

IOW, you're not interested in anything but your wallet.

How about you?


Nope. I live for beurocracy. I'd rather it go to them than spend it on
leisure pursuits, in fact.



Bertie