"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:24:23 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I
don't think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"

I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.
http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2002/0303.htm
http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2004/0204.htm
I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station,
Texas. They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.


No I expect people who make statements to be able to back them up with
something other than some nut job's website.


Well, he said it to Robert Sherman and never denied he said it after it was
published... It was at a quick press conference when he was VP IIRC. There
were other members of the press there and i suspect one of them would have
set he record straight. As to it being updated, Franco is still dead..


Bertie

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.

Let's hope your house can withstand the breeze that comes along with that
milder temperature.

--
Neil

"John Mazor" wrote in message
news:lNCgj.5934$qV.4112@trnddc03...

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

What evidence of globa;l warming?

How about:

- Melting icecaps
- Melting glaciers

Like those haven't happened for millenium?

- Documented changes due to warming in other local climates

It's called "Heat Island".


Or do you dismiss that as irrelevant? If so, please see below.

It is irrelevant in that it's a natural thing.


Or the fanatics who are in denial about the solid foundations for
evolution and the growing evidence of global warning?

Or those in denial about the fraudulent evidence for global warming.

Please demonstrate and fully explicate the perpetration of fraud in the
scientific data.

Oh, how about multiple cases of fudged data, misrepresented data...say, the
UN farse going my the name of IPCC.


You can start by specifically refuting in detail, and demonstrating the
fraud in the following:

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

First, Wiki is virtually useless - it's a "one way discussion".

As for EcoBridge, I'll let Jim Logajan start and I'll add the point of fraud
being how the earlier graphs (CO2 levels | Temps) where the scales were
misrepresented and reverse to show what they wanted to show. You're aware of
that one I suspect, in that you purport to such knowledge.

Or maybe it's just that old logical fallacy "argument from authority".

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"John Mazor" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
What evidence of globa;l warming?


which are simple enough even for the layman to follow.

I'm a lazy man myself, and although I think the preponderance of evidence
(and basic considerations of physics) suggests human activities have been
a
factor in changing the climate,

Sure have; .05C out of 1C at most. In most places that call this background
noise.

We're also a "factor" in global cooling (i.e., sulphur dioxide (?) and
other REAL pollutants.).

John Mazor wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:

Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of (they call it
faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is scientists who accepts things they
aren't 100% sure of it is somehow different?

That's precisely the difference between science and faith. The scientist says "I think,
based on empirical evidence (which might be wrong) that..." whereas fundamentalist
Christians make such a leap of faith that they insist that "I take it as a matter of faith
that this is the gospel truth direct from the mouth of God so it can't possibly be wrong
no matter what evidence to the contrary, and you will burn in hell if you deny it."

And I'm sure that if you cornered any of those scientists and asked "We understand the
concerns you have expressed, but keeping in mind the limits of the scientific method,
are you prepared to give us a 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility
that your findings might be mistaken?" the vast majority would not say yes.

A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the
lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global
warming, that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be
contributing to this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining
all the observed data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often
scientists are guilty of not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume
that everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their announcements. But
even when they do provide the full context, it seldom is included in the media
accounts because it's not as sexy as some version of "Scientistists predict the end
is near!"
I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in statements such
as:

“the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
anything to do with human activity on this planet.”

“There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human
activity…The warming of the climate system is now unequivocal,”
See previous.

Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?
See previous. And since it is a brief news account, we don't know that the appropriate
caveats weren't given at the news conference or in the report.
Nice rationalizations. Keep trying, these are pretty weak.

Yeah, right. "None so blind as those who will not see."

On that we agree. The scientists are so convinced that they are right
they refuse to look any alternate points of view.

John Mazor wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
(they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
different?
Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100% certain,
Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over

And still you won't get it.

Now that's a sig worth considering.



And you just HAD to reply to Buttnip so that I'd see his post even
though my filter killed the original...

Jay Honeck wrote:
I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.

I live at about 1500' elevation on a mountain in PA and I'm hoping for
waterfront property by the time I retire! :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

John Mazor wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure
of (they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it
is scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is
somehow different?
Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100%
certain, Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over

And still you won't get it.

Now that's a sig worth considering.



And you just HAD to reply to Buttnip so that I'd see his post even
though my filter killed the original...

Hey if it's a little filter busting you want...


Very unbecoming to run away from a cute little Bunyip, BTW.

Makes it look like you're afraid of me or something.




eitreB

Matt Whiting wrote in news:1RSgj.1401$2n4.31536
@news1.epix.net:

Jay Honeck wrote:
I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.

I live at about 1500' elevation on a mountain in PA and I'm hoping for
waterfront property by the time I retire! :-)


Oh ! Such a card!


Bertie

John Mazor wrote:

So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the greenhouse gas CO2. From
one of the websites you so blithely blew off:

"The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since
pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center), a 34% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning
of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating
electricity."

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm