In article ,
"aluckyguess" wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You're just playing dumb, right?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines

In article ,
"aluckyguess" wrote:

"Wildbilly" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Frank wrote:

http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html

Good for you, Frank, a real citation.
If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
then, maybe, we can have a conversation.

Does not knowing the values of the variable in the equation N=N*fp ne fl
fi fc fL change its' veracity?

If species that we know are going extinct, why wouldn't species of which
we are unaware, not going extinct?

Whether you numb your brain on my cite or not, we still are left with
the choices of (1) acting against greenhouse gas emissions (and look
silly if "global warming' isn't happening), or (2) not acting against
greenhouse gas emissions (causing unprecedented death and destruction
around the world).

Tell me, Frank, which bet would you prefer to lose?

--

If the earth was cooling (as thought in the 70's and 80's) would you be
trying to burn more fossils fuels?
A slight warming is actually a good thing,(natural occurrence) it gives
more land to grow things that are needed for an expanding population.
In the next 100 years technology will completely change everything as we
know it.
Make believe greenhouse gas emissions isn't going to cause unprecedented
death and destruction.

http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resource...obal%20scale%2
0temp%20patterns.pdf

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch06.pdf

Who you gonna believe? A science fiction writer that lives on publicity,
or some nondescript scientists, that tells it the way that they sees it?

Again, the worst case scenarios:
(1) Spend what little money that we have left to suppress greenhouse
gases, and risk derision for being gullible fools, or

(2) Do nothing to prevent the misery and death that "global warming"
will bring.

Nobody has a financial gain, but there could be some financial loses for
those that use fossil fuels.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines

aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year
old) so this doesn't warrant a reply.

David

Wildbilly wrote:
In article ,
"aluckyguess" wrote:

"Wildbilly" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Frank wrote:

http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html

Good for you, Frank, a real citation.
If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
then, maybe, we can have a conversation.

Does not knowing the values of the variable in the equation N=N*fp
ne fl fi fc fL change its' veracity?

If species that we know are going extinct, why wouldn't species of
which we are unaware, not going extinct?

Whether you numb your brain on my cite or not, we still are left
with the choices of (1) acting against greenhouse gas emissions
(and look silly if "global warming' isn't happening), or (2) not
acting against greenhouse gas emissions (causing unprecedented
death and destruction around the world).

Tell me, Frank, which bet would you prefer to lose?

--

If the earth was cooling (as thought in the 70's and 80's) would you
be trying to burn more fossils fuels?
A slight warming is actually a good thing,(natural occurrence) it
gives more land to grow things that are needed for an expanding
population. In the next 100 years technology will completely change
everything as we know it.
Make believe greenhouse gas emissions isn't going to cause
unprecedented death and destruction.

http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resource...obal%20scale%2
0temp%20patterns.pdf

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch06.pdf

Who you gonna believe? A science fiction writer that lives on
publicity, or some nondescript scientists, that tells it the way that
they sees it?

Again, the worst case scenarios:
(1) Spend what little money that we have left to suppress greenhouse
gases, and risk derision for being gullible fools, or

(2) Do nothing to prevent the misery and death that "global warming"
will bring.

Nobody has a financial gain, but there could be some financial loses
for those that use fossil fuels.

He is yanking your chain.

David

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:41:37 -0800, Wildbilly wrote:
In article ,
"aluckyguess" wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You're just playing dumb, right?

No. Religions have no evidence whatsoever. Most are circular:
bible says god exists; bible is word of god; god said so, etc.
That isn't evidence. Lots of people believing something isn't
evidence. Feelings of someting aren't evidence.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote:
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year
old) so this doesn't warrant a reply.

David

Because you have no evidence.

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Wildbilly wrote:
In article ,
"aluckyguess" wrote:

"Wildbilly" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Frank wrote:

http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html

Good for you, Frank, a real citation.
If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
then, maybe, we can have a conversation.

Does not knowing the values of the variable in the equation N=N*fp
ne fl fi fc fL change its' veracity?

If species that we know are going extinct, why wouldn't species of
which we are unaware, not going extinct?

Whether you numb your brain on my cite or not, we still are left
with the choices of (1) acting against greenhouse gas emissions
(and look silly if "global warming' isn't happening), or (2) not
acting against greenhouse gas emissions (causing unprecedented
death and destruction around the world).

Tell me, Frank, which bet would you prefer to lose?

--

If the earth was cooling (as thought in the 70's and 80's) would you
be trying to burn more fossils fuels?
A slight warming is actually a good thing,(natural occurrence) it
gives more land to grow things that are needed for an expanding
population. In the next 100 years technology will completely change
everything as we know it.
Make believe greenhouse gas emissions isn't going to cause
unprecedented death and destruction.

http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resource...obal%20scale%2
0temp%20patterns.pdf

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch06.pdf

Who you gonna believe? A science fiction writer that lives on
publicity, or some nondescript scientists, that tells it the way that
they sees it?

Again, the worst case scenarios:
(1) Spend what little money that we have left to suppress greenhouse
gases, and risk derision for being gullible fools, or

(2) Do nothing to prevent the misery and death that "global warming"
will bring.

Nobody has a financial gain, but there could be some financial loses
for those that use fossil fuels.

He is yanking your chain.

David

Possibly, or he could be a corporate stooge, or just dumb.

On the gardening front, my two stevia plants that survived over winter
last year under two 24" T5 florescent lights, are thriving under 4 48"
T5s this year.

Hoping to start geminating spinach, kale, Swiss chard, and peas this
week. When May gets here I want to have some large plants to put in the
ground.

I've mulched the beds (a little over 600 sq. ft.) and sown rye and
buckwheat, which will get cut and covered over with a fresh layer of
alfalfa (lucern), two weeks before planting.

How's your garden coming along this year? Is your water holding up?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled
14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply.

David

Because you have no evidence.

Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply
was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the
evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is
religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be.

David

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled
14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply.

David

Because you have no evidence.

Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply
was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the
evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is
religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be.

David

In other words, you have no evidence.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled
14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply.

David

Because you have no evidence.

Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply
was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the
evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is
religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be.

David

In other words, you have no evidence.

By your standards, neither do you. The facts are in dispute, however the
preponderance of scientist agree that it appears that the planet is
warming (at least in part) because of our use of fossil fuels, and the
large herds of cattle being raised for human consumption(methane).
Whatever the cause, more methane is being released as the arctic tundra
warms up, which will only accelerate global warming. If the oceans warm
a bit more, frozen methane anhydride will be released, and global
warming will accelerate again.

OK, this is speculation from some of the world's best minds. They could
be wrong, but, then again, they could be right. It seems that the wise
man, given a choice of looking foolish or dead, would pick foolish. Or
do you suggest that we hunker down like ol' Harry Truman did when
ordered to evacuate the region around Mt. St. Helens?

Why do you wish to put humanity in harm's way, without proof?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines

This is way off topic and is getting boring. Let's just drop it!

Glenn Lynn

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled
14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply.

David

Because you have no evidence.

Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply
was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the
evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is
religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be.

David

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure
that matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled
14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply.

David

Because you have no evidence.

Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My
reply was about the method of forming your views and understanding
not about the evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that
the matter is religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be.

David

In other words, you have no evidence.

Too thick to understand too proud to give up.

David

Glenn Lynn wrote:
This is way off topic and is getting boring. Let's just drop it!

Glenn Lynn



You are right.

David

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:29:58 -0800, Wildbilly wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott
wrote:
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html

You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that
matters - it is the evidence.

David

What evidence?

You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled
14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply.

David

Because you have no evidence.

Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply
was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the
evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is
religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be.

David

In other words, you have no evidence.

By your standards, neither do you. The facts are in dispute, however the
preponderance of scientist agree that it appears that the planet is

maybe I misfollowed the thread. I thought somebody was making a
claim that god or gods exist.

In article ,
says...

By your standards, neither do you. The facts are in dispute, however the
preponderance of scientist agree that it appears that the planet is

maybe I misfollowed the thread. I thought somebody was making a
claim that god or gods exist.

The thread is about global warming.

Frank threw a rather dumb monkey wrench into the mechanism by changing
the subject line and posting a link to

http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html --an irrelevancy and in context, I
think an ad hominem.

I've stayed out of the mix to this point because I believe the small fry
AGW chiquitita pequeño tiranitos require no answer that absorbs more
than a moment of my time.

Generally I think AGW types have no instinct for the opportunity
embedded in an wholistic response to global warming.