On 11/03/2014 5:21 PM, Todd wrote:
On 03/10/2014 11:02 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/03/2014 8:58 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
I have to believe that Hansen was sincere in what he was
saying. It is okay to be wrong every now and then.
Can you see where this is going? We are not having a
discussion on this or that piece of fascinating
research or discovery.
You are reacting to me the same way I would react to
you if you told me my God did not create the heavens
and the earth. I just know it to be true and would
summarily dismiss you (without the name calling
["Deniers"]) just as you are dismissing me. You know
it to be true and won't hear otherwise. Just as I
would not listen to you.
You are stating the bleeding obvious reason why I would not continue
with this.
I'd have thought that you wouldn't bother to continue with him because
he cites 'newsbusters' and its inaccurate report of '11 inaccuracies'
and making statements like 'There is no vast consensus. Just a lot of
sloppy research.'
Those examples, let alone the rest of what he's written, are enough to
make a person of reasonable sensibilities curl up and slink away in case
what he's got is infectious.
Hi Fran,
You need to look at both sides. At first, it will hurt a bit,
but eventually you will get use to it.
I long ago looked at both sides both on the Web and in newsgroup and
quite obviously since I've read the drivel you have posted and the cites
you've given, I still continue to read both sides. I hope I never lose
my marbles sufficiently that I will be so uncritical as to accept what
is said by deniers.
I long ago concluded that deniers were either engaged in duping others
or were the subject of the duping. Deniers invariably selectively cite
and choose opinion over fact. That applied equally to Web based sites
or in newsgroups. No doubt it's all about money and following the money
trail would reveal who is putting up the money for the dupers to do
their peddling.
After a while
you will find it enjoyable. Broadens your understanding
of the world around you. You can also have wonderful
conservations with others as long as you are polite about
your differences and listen to others.
I have a retired college professor as a customer that
loves to talk politics with me.
He probably dines out on what you say.
One of the things I
adore about him is the way he repeats back what I said
to him to make sure that is exactly what I meant before disagrees
with me. We have the most wonderful conversations. And
because he listens and reflects what I say, I love listening
to him as well. Dude is one sharp cookie!
And the 11 inaccuracies where a British court.
Wrong. It's a single digit not even a big number like the 97% of
climate scientists who agree that anthropogenic climate change is real.
If you don't
like Newsbusters as a source, try a different source:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=11+inaccur...+british+court
Another cite that doesn't get the numbers right
And Newsbuster published a retraction:
Correction: Judge Finds Only Nine Convenient Untruths in Gore's Film:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ths-gores-film
That could be been a positive thing for them to have done if they hadn't
repeated the previously included 2 lies and hadn't attempted to smear US
press which had accurately reported the Courts edict on guidance notes.
I also loved the hypocrisy whereby they criticise 'the [US] press'
for failing to expose 'a charade' when the self same shabby,
hypocritical site didn't expose the highly manipulative and transparent
charade of Monckton's funding of the challenge before a British court.