On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any
given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil
fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes.
The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by
combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric
CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured.

No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including
volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results.


Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are
Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from
forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent
and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have
been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply
because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both
frequency and intensity.

That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely
taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can
see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is
suggestive, but not conclusive.



When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into
consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate
of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic
change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human
activity.


Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and
when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2
concentrations.

Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar
output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a
true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained.


snip
Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical
competency,

Frank has some issues as well. He failed to recognize common industry
terms, and discredited my explanations of common electronic circuits
because they didn't fit within his own narrow "education".


I recognized the "terms" as being poorly defined slang used by some
who are without formal education in the field.

I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take
exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".

And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.



And your explanations
don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite
your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics.

Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more
importantly) your real world experience has been.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the
tech school you claim to have attended.

I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention
of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have
been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think
that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does
my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of
things.


you called him names and took issue with his career.

I was he who first started to degrade my education and career. I only
kept the same level of civility.


You may have matched my level of 'civility' (subject to debate), but
you didn't even come close to my level of education and experience in
the field of electronics.

Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you
smell......


Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact
remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your
education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine.

Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a
lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie.


On the contrary, you tried to denounce me
with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions.

Which is exactly what you did.


Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or
logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs".

You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are
simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda
driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain
certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are
hardly the only explanation.

Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies.



So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave?

On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank.


Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next
to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda.......


I've provided fact after fact after fact.

No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after
opinion.

All the facts I have
provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else
willing to do so.

Where?


You have provided nothing of the sort in -any-
topic.

I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what
I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most
cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and
twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the
smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove
the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that
shallow?



.... No one is perfect. If the best you
can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of
posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage.


You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10
years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage.

I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect.
But I am right more than I'm wrong. And I invite you to invest even
more of your leisure time researching my newsgroup participation in
yet another fruitless effort to discredit me.

But hey, if that makes you feel better about yourself, then who am I
to stand in the way of therapy.


I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of
my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind.


Jim
tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him
naive.

If someone truly thinks that a foreign news service is any less likely
to be affected by political bias, then they are naive.


Yet you claim that domestic news services are heavily biased to the
left. If that's true then foreign news services are -more- likely to
be -less- biased, which makes -you- naive.

That statement makes absolutely no logical sense.


Only because you are incapable of thinking logically.

That's not logic. It's convolution.

What one country's news service bias is, has absolutely no bearing on
what another country's bias is. There is no connection or relation
whatsoever. Their bias depends on the agenda of those who are pulling
the financial or political purse strings and who sits in the editor's/
publisher's office.


Where is the logic
that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any
way connected to domestic news services?


That's not what I said, Dave. Learn to read instead of gazing into
your crystal ball.

What you said makes no sense, so maybe you should rephrase it in a
more logical manner.


Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did
not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as
likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not
immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative
to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that?


Absolutely. Any news service is subject to bias simply because must
decide if any given article is newsworthy. US news services are biased
because of corporate ownership influences and target audience
demographics.

Not to mention the liberal slant of the reporters and writers who are
producing the articles. If corporate ownership had as much influence
as you imply, then the slant of U.S. news would be decidedly
conservative. Yet, with the notable exception of (Thank God for) Fox
News, that is not the case.

I suggest that you pick up copies of the books "Bias" and "Arrogance"
by Bernard Goldberg. Both are good reads into the liberal slant of the
mainstream media. Goldberg was a 28 year veteran of CBS news, and has
an insider's view on what actually goes on inside the "art" of news
reporting.




IOW, the Dutch are far less concerned with American news
than Americans, so an independent Dutch news agency is going to have
far less bias than any US news service, NPR included.

That may or may not be true depending on their bias toward or against
Americans. If they have a decidedly anti-American slant, they would
tend to only report on those news stories that paint America in an
unfavorable light.

I suppose
you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity?


I don't think Jim claimed to get his news from Al-Jazeera.

No he didn't. But would you consider Al Jazeera's reporting of
Americans to be objective? Why or why not? Then explain why any of
those factors would be exclusive only to Al Jazeera.


Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may
ask such questions.


You need to learn the difference between a 'simile' and a 'metaphor'.
Didn't you ever watch that Danny DeVito movie where he played Kotter
to a group of Army dimwits?

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference
between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your
comments right?


No, I didn't. But since you didn't spot his error, my statement
stands.

I don't nitpick on grammatical mistakes. Only people who start losing
debates on the merits of debate itself, resort to attacking grammar,
structure or spelling errors. If you can't attack the message, attack
the messenger as it were.


Your word games and semantic shuffle will not allow you to wiggle out
of that so easily. If one does not post their opinions, how do we know
what they think on any topic?


Several people have posted opinions that are contrary to your's.

Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's
mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with
my advice on CB radio?


After 10 years of posting I'm sure I could find more than a few in the
archives.

Doubtful. Most are either thankful for my advice, or at least debate
with it on a civil level. I miss the days when Dennis O, Sean, Bill
E., Toll and others offered up their own perspectives with respect to
CB radio. Only the rapid malcontents have any consistent issue with
me.


If you want to talk about politics, there are
too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or
"wrong".


Regardless, there are -many- people who have posted political opinions
that are contrary to your own warped and subjective whinings.


That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But the fact that you
hold that opinion, in and of itself, is not proof that my contrary
opinions are "wrong".


Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that
supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats.

I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the
conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals.


You must be cross-posting to an alternative universe because that's
not what comes up on my newsreader.

Then you need to look harder. Most of the liberals there cannot think
independently. They offer up op-ed column of obviously biased
reporters as some sort of "support" for their opinions. But liberalism
defies logic, and that's what especially laughable about you Frank.
You, who claim to embrace logic, yet adopt a political ideology that's
mostly "pie in the sky" idealism. A philosophy that requires a great
deal of complicated governmental intervention to implement. The free
market capitalist society is one of true freedom. Those who work hard,
get rewarded. Those who don't....... Well they have no one else to
blame but themselves for what they end up with.


The
conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there
tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points
and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for
independent thought.


They "regurgitate" their arguments in order to find some path of
understanding through your thick skull and to your brain, assuming you
actually have a brain.


But BS is still BS no matter how many times they "regurgitate" it.

And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging
credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are
becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty.


Doesn't matter since your only supporter has left the building.

Your still wrong Frank.

But your nature dictates that you will continue to attack me. But like
trying to find firm footing in quicksand, your arguments will be just
as ineffective.

That is why arguing politics is usually pointless.

Dave
"Sandbagger"