Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:44:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : 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. No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes, ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll, the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends- upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire, etc, etc. Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed. You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete the total picture. In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight away from the surface. Yes, that true, but the effect of those volcanos on the total climate is significant, and can disrupt the otherwise cyclic nature of the climatic shifts. I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave. I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring holes in the evidence. I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to Twisty previously. 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. You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of the 11/22 year sunspot cycles. Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output. But there are still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output. 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. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. 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. Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub Yea, like I'm going to reveal where I work. , or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. I already have pictures of both on my website. Next? So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. So you say. We have only your word for that. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF) graduated from EWU. Second, every school is prevented by law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied. If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name) attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure? 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. And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class. I learn something every day. And I APPLY it to the bottom line. 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. Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't learned how to tell the difference between them. No, I just illustrated the difference. It is you who don't know the difference, since most of your so-called "facts" especially in the political arena, are really nuggets of fact wrapped in a layer of speculative conclusion. Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies. Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical arguments What? You last set was full of fallacies. Your favorites are false analogies, denying the antecedent, and argumentum infinitum, with a smattering of straw man arguments thrown in for good measure. . My offer to send you the Copi book still stands. I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. 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? Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library. Translation: I cannot provide a specific example, so I will invoke yet another logical fallacy "Ad hominem" , to add to the growing repertoire. 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? It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your "tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your "engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA. Because the small exceptions to not invalidate the rule. And posting names of people is meaningless unless there is a common point of reference. .... 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. Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions. No, history will show that you do. Especially when it comes to political ideologies. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
So is the same dog biting your ass!
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Anyone know any of these guys? Is it just possible the hams are playing you all for fools, planting rumors to titillate you? A dog chasing its own tail is a funny sight... Regards, John |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
.... sounds like you better becareful, if that same dog bit you--he'd be
sure to hit your A$$ dead on--seeing as how you are all A$$... Warmest regards, John "Real CBer" wrote in message ... So is the same dog biting your ass! "John Smith" wrote in message ... Anyone know any of these guys? Is it just possible the hams are playing you all for fools, planting rumors to titillate you? A dog chasing its own tail is a funny sight... Regards, John |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
Ahhh, mopathetic got a new lover to play with between keydowns.
|
#337
|
|||
|
|||
When accused of doing the nasty with large birds, mopathetic said....
"That's right! Have a gander.." |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:44:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : 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. No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes, ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll, the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends- upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire, etc, etc. Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed. You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete the total picture. So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability". Yet another flip-flop. In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight away from the surface. Yes, that true, but the effect of those volcanos on the total climate is significant, and can disrupt the otherwise cyclic nature of the climatic shifts. But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole while climbing a mountain pass. I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave. I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring holes in the evidence. What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from? Not volcanos, that's for sure...... Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that the global temperature is rising, and that we are the cause. The only disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or "climate change". I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to Twisty previously. Post them if you want. 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. You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of the 11/22 year sunspot cycles. Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output. Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes, but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise. But there are still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output. A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's effects, and usually only for a cycle or two. 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. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide. 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. Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub Yea, like I'm going to reveal where I work. Then don't. Black out the name of your employer. , or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. I already have pictures of both on my website. Next? See below..... So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. So you say. We have only your word for that. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF) graduated from EWU. Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and boat and call it your's, right? Get a clue already..... my middle initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have graduated from EWU. Do you? Second, every school is prevented by law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied. If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name) attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure? How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your boat? I don't. You are just making more excuses. 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. And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class. I learn something every day. And I APPLY it to the bottom line. 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. Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't learned how to tell the difference between them. No, I just illustrated the difference. It is you who don't know the difference, since most of your so-called "facts" especially in the political arena, are really nuggets of fact wrapped in a layer of speculative conclusion. I told you a long time ago that you need to throw away the wrapping and focus on those "nuggets of fact". Instead, you throw away the facts just because you don't like the wrapping. That's your fault, not mine. Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies. Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical arguments What? You last set was full of fallacies. Your favorites are false analogies, denying the antecedent, and argumentum infinitum, with a smattering of straw man arguments thrown in for good measure. Never used anything of the sort, and I invite you to post any argument where you think such a fallacy was used by me. . My offer to send you the Copi book still stands. I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the "poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to convince Bush that invading China is a good idea. 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? Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library. Translation: I cannot provide a specific example, so I will invoke yet another logical fallacy "Ad hominem" , to add to the growing repertoire. I don't know if there is a fallacy that is specifically named for ignoring previously referenced sources, but if there isn't I'll call it the "Dave Hall #1". That's to go along with the "Dave Hall #2" fallacy which is best described as semantic backpedalling. And the "Dave Hall #3", aka the "flip-flop frenzy" -- you are so desperate to make your case that you forget your previous arguments and end up contradicting yourself. I should make a list. 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? It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your "tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your "engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA. Because the small exceptions to not invalidate the rule. Not unless the exception is a -part- of the rule, dummy! And posting names of people is meaningless unless there is a common point of reference. More lame excuses. .... 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. Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions. No, history will show that you do. Especially when it comes to political ideologies. Well, -your- history of posting has shown that you have made far more mistakes than you admit. And that is a fact, not an opinion. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data. No one had asked previously. I asked several times. No, you asked about the divorce rate. Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to explain how your statistic relates to my statement. But since you have now, the percentage of married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and gather information from. Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people that are married have been previously married? And how many times? Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant. No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau. The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the subject. My statement was correct. Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated "factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist. If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing propagandists then I suppose you are correct. The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social security"? Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the Republicans. Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan, which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure out what "promote the general Welfare" means. America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service, at the expense of the people who actually earn money. If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. They refer to it by different names. Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure. Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement. Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any other name? Names like "living wage", "fair share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing. Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't. LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'! Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in. First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to irresponsible Republican economic plans (not to forget that 40% of wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than a loan). Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of other carefully legislated loopholes. And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not -- more specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let alone health insurance for their children. It's also targeted towards the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust fund dries up in a few years (and after Bush shuts down drug imports from Canada). Care to make any more assinine comments about those subjects? What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not understand? What percent of people are married, Dave? See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1% are separated, and 28.6% have never been married. It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV and can't read a simple spreadsheet? I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two or more categories? None if you add all the numbers together to get that 100%. Although I would tend to think that there should be no difference between "married spouse absent" and "separated". Although the former category could refer to things like military deployment for long term. But then, I'm guessing at that point. Yep, you sure do a lot of guessing. I'll agree with that. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't surprise me that you have. You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'. That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told. Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told it's liberally slanted. I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV. yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog, shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:23 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed. You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete the total picture. So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability". Yet another flip-flop. All we have been able to determine is that we are in a period of global warming. Evidence has suggested that this planet has endured many such cycles in its past. It is irresponsible to think that mankind alone is responsible for the current phase of warming, and it is equally irresponsible to suggest that if we were to magically stop using fossil fuels today, that we could stop or reverse the trend. The best we may be able to do is slow it down. But at what cost? But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole while climbing a mountain pass. It's likely that the current warming "trend" has been going on for far longer. We've only obtained in the last 50 or so years the technology to track subtle climatic and weather changes. What occurred before that is anyone's guess, and evidence obtained in soil and ice samples only fits in a part of that puzzle, and can give us a general idea, but not specifics. I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave. I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring holes in the evidence. What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from? Not volcanos, that's for sure...... Yes, we have an effect, but to say that our burning of greenhouse gasses is the sole reason why we're in a warming trend is presumptuous. Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that the global temperature is rising, No argument. and that we are the cause. That is where you are wrong. We are likely NOT the cause, we are merely a contributor or accelerator. There is still much debate on just how much effect we truly to have. The only disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or "climate change". You don't read much outside of those reports which support your foregone conclusion do you? I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to Twisty previously. Post them if you want. I'll post one. It's an overview of the whole controversy and gives both sides of the issue: http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/...rsial_Issue s Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output. Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes, but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise. But there are still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output. A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's effects, and usually only for a cycle or two. But a colder than normal winter over a period of years WILL effect the thickness and spacing of tree rings irrespective of the sun's output. 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. Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references? I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the futility of such a request. Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide. Certainly. , or a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up with more excuses. I already have pictures of both on my website. Next? See below..... So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm proud of it. So you say. We have only your word for that. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school, and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both attended and graduated from EWU. No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF) graduated from EWU. Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and boat and call it your's, right? Keep going, you're getting warmer...... Get a clue already..... my middle initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have graduated from EWU. Do you? No, but it was an example of someone with a similar name. Just to illustrate my point. But........... If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name) attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure? How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your boat? I don't. Exactly! Thank you for finally getting the point Frank. The fact is that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify" their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask. I have far more reference material than that one book could ever provide. Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the "poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I (and many others) can access information on the internet for free instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to amass in book form? Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink". It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system. Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to convince Bush that invading China is a good idea. Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going through the minds in Bejing...... Dave "Sandbagger" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|