Michael Bryant wrote:

From: "CW"

Bryant, you were straitening up there for a while but I see you have
reverted to idiot mode again.

Yep, I'm a good guy as long as I don't correct your factual innaccuracies. But
stand up against your ignorance, and I'm an idiot. I think most of us can
decide on our own who is the greater idiot.

Still no support for your position, CW? Not a single URL?

Relax, be happy, it's MLK Day!

Bryant


Hey Bryant

Here's a link you might find interesting:

http://www.globalwarming.org/

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: N8KDV

I never said that! You are trying to put words in my mouth! Typical debate
stuff.


OK, show me where you've any support other than you're own claims to the
obvious.

This is not academic debate Bryant, you are no longer in academia, get over
it!
This is the 'real world'!

There you go making assumptions, again, Steve. Can you prove I'm no longer in
academia? Do you want to put money on that assumption? Really. So, is there no
such thing as a "real-world" academician? If I got a job teaching electronics
at a vocational school, would that make me a "real-world" academician?

I guess it boils down to one question: What support can you provide, Steve, for
anything you say that is not related to radio? And since when is Dxing 18 hours
a day qualifications to be in the "real world"? ;-)

When did I claim to DX 18 hours a day? Actually I spend very little time actually
DXing these days... don't have to! ;-)



Celebrating both my birthday and MLK.

Happy Birthday!



Mike
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: N8KDV

And stop emailing me every time you make a post to rec.radio.shortwave...
someone
with the intelligence you claim to have ought to be able to figure out how to
do
that!

You know I know how... Just had side bets riding on how long it would take you
to make your stock complaints....

Not a stock complaint, a long running one though, because you haven't learned yet
how not to do it?

Glad you're at least making something on the bet!



I think I'll make sure to add my SWLing call sign just to make you whine more.

I pay little attention to insignificant things! Like SWL callsigns!



Where are those URLs, Steve?

Mike,

Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: "CW"

I really don't give a crap if the whole world wants to get together and cry
at the same time. It doesn't change the fact that it is a baseless emotional
outburst.

Read the URLs, CW. The scientific evidence is pretty conclusive. In the light
of your refusal to post any URLs containing counter-evidence it seems that the
baseless emotional outburst is just one more of your "emissions" that can be
traced back to you.

The only thing conclusive is that you believe em! Nothing less, nothing more!



If the overwhelming amount of scientists can produce evidence and all you can
do is say "It ain't so!" who do you think is performing the emotional outburst?

Happy MLK Day!

Bryant

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: N8KDV


You really think that 'most of the rest of the world' supports your way of
thinking? Thanks for the great laugh to get my day started!

I already provided the URL showing that over 90% of scientists across the world
support the linkage between man-made greenhouse gases. I guess actually reading
is far too great a waste of your time.

The following link:

http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html

shows that the vast majority of governmental policy-makers across the planet
believe that's there's enough evidence to support attempts to scale-back
greenhouse emissions.

Let's see, that's still zero support for YOUR obvious common sense
counter-positions, right?

Again, I ask: Why Does The EPA and State Dept under Bush recognize the linkage?
Why has Bush never denied the connection? Does GW Bush not have the pipeline to
obvious truth that God has provided Steve Lare?

Having a bad day, Steve?

No, but apparently you are! Even though it's your Birthday and MLK day to boot!

I rarely have a bad day. If it sucks to be you, so be it! When it sucks to be me,
then I'll worry!



Mike

From: "Mark S. Holden"

Here's a link you might find interesting:

http://www.globalwarming.org/

Thanks for being intellectual enough to at least provide a single URL.
Actually, I know this URL very well, already. As a debate coach, it was my
responsibility to prepare arguments on both the negative and affirmative. This
URL is looked upon as one of the primary negative sources on the issue of
greenhouse warming.

Here are the indictments that usually convinced judges to dismiss it:

1. It ignores the strong consensus in the scientific community.

2. Many of it's counter-claims, particularly scientific, are undocumented. They
simply refuse to provide some important citations. Undoubtedly, this is to
deter scrupilous examination of the sources of their counter-facts.

3. It assumes mandated CO2 levels when making projections about economic costs,
largely ignoring effluent trading schemes. All their projections are worst-case
when it comes to regulatory schemes.

4. The page admits their own bias. If you check under the About this Site link,
you'll see that this organization was created years ago to dispel global
warming. They won't even admit, as Steve does, that climate has been warming.
They're still promulgating those old faulty CIA studies on cooling taking
place.

5. This is not a group of scientists running this webpage. They are right-wing
political activists. They use the common tactic of ignoring data that doesn't
fit within their paradigm. Their primary concern, as can be seen by their first
link, is discrediting Gore as extremist. They are POLITICAL, not SCIENTIFIC.

I am not saying that everything at this site is wrong. When you look at the
totality of evidence produced on both sides (a daunting task that I've been
attempting for years) there are legitimate scientific points to be made from
both sides. But there are means of policy action that won't destroy our
economy. No one is seriously saying we should stop all fossil fuels anytime
soon. But given the enormous implications for human survival tied to climate
chane, along with a host of other reasons (including independence from reliance
on MidEastern oil supplies!!) we should immediately start embracing fuel
efficiency incentives such as effluent trading schemes.

There is a good negative argument that any reforms are too late, that the
damage is so well along that we can't do much. But, I remain optimistic that
the sooner we stop sticking our heads in the sand, the more optimistic we can
all be about future human survival.

Thanks, Mark, for returning some modicum of intelligence to this discourse.

I hope you're having a great MLK Day!

Mike Bryant

From: N8KDV

Read the URLs, CW. The scientific evidence is pretty conclusive. In the
light
of your refusal to post any URLs containing counter-evidence it seems that
the
baseless emotional outburst is just one more of your "emissions" that can
be
traced back to you.

The only thing conclusive is that you believe em! Nothing less, nothing more!


No, you're wrong. The other conclusive thing is that no matter how much
scientific evidence and consensus exists (or will ever exist), we can count on
your "common sense" to trump it.

Come on, Steve! You can do better than the weak one-line responses you've
limited yourself to this morning.

Smile, it's MLK Day!

Bryant,

not sending a copy to your mailbox, OK, Steve?
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

In article , N8KDV
writes:


I have 1000s more URLs if you're interested...

Hmmm... there is no dispute that there is indeed global warming. The dispute
arises when the tin-foil hat crowd suggests that it is manmade. The
historical and
geological record bear this out.



Granted, you have natural fluctuations in earths tempurature;

Add greenhouse gases into the mix, and you have something
else to consider.
read the Daily " Hockey Stick" paper;
He makes a reference to " Urban Heat Islands" messing up historical data..

"
At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface
temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the
product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. "

Urban heat islands are never mentioned again in his paper. they weren't around
in the 1700's and again , add something new to the mix.
Heat Islands..
Greenhouse gases.
So
- Possibly if enough people wore aluminum foil hats,
it might radiate enough energy out into space to counteract the effect of
Greenhouse gases , heat Islands et al;

- You go first.. !

Happy MLK & MW Bryant Birthdays..

Dan

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: "Mark S. Holden"

Here's a link you might find interesting:

http://www.globalwarming.org/

Thanks for being intellectual enough to at least provide a single URL.
Actually, I know this URL very well, already. As a debate coach, it was my
responsibility to prepare arguments on both the negative and affirmative. This
URL is looked upon as one of the primary negative sources on the issue of
greenhouse warming.

Here are the indictments that usually convinced judges to dismiss it:

1. It ignores the strong consensus in the scientific community.

2. Many of it's counter-claims, particularly scientific, are undocumented. They
simply refuse to provide some important citations. Undoubtedly, this is to
deter scrupilous examination of the sources of their counter-facts.

3. It assumes mandated CO2 levels when making projections about economic costs,
largely ignoring effluent trading schemes. All their projections are worst-case
when it comes to regulatory schemes.

4. The page admits their own bias. If you check under the About this Site link,
you'll see that this organization was created years ago to dispel global
warming. They won't even admit, as Steve does, that climate has been warming.
They're still promulgating those old faulty CIA studies on cooling taking
place.

5. This is not a group of scientists running this webpage. They are right-wing
political activists. They use the common tactic of ignoring data that doesn't
fit within their paradigm. Their primary concern, as can be seen by their first
link, is discrediting Gore as extremist. They are POLITICAL, not SCIENTIFIC.

Gore is indeed a political extremist.



I am not saying that everything at this site is wrong. When you look at the
totality of evidence produced on both sides (a daunting task that I've been
attempting for years) there are legitimate scientific points to be made from
both sides. But there are means of policy action that won't destroy our
economy. No one is seriously saying we should stop all fossil fuels anytime
soon. But given the enormous implications for human survival tied to climate
chane, along with a host of other reasons (including independence from reliance
on MidEastern oil supplies!!) we should immediately start embracing fuel
efficiency incentives such as effluent trading schemes.

There is a good negative argument that any reforms are too late, that the
damage is so well along that we can't do much. But, I remain optimistic that
the sooner we stop sticking our heads in the sand, the more optimistic we can
all be about future human survival.

Thanks, Mark, for returning some modicum of intelligence to this discourse.

Oh, so I'm not intelligent huh? LMAO... you need to take more holidays... I've read
some excellent diatribes in the past, but this is a good one!



I hope you're having a great MLK Day!

Mike Bryant

Come on, put your SWL callsign in here!

From: N8KDV

Gore is indeed a political extremist.

That's sweet coming from a guy who just posted in another thread that Rush
Limbaugh is a good programming choice.

To be honest, I'm not a big Gore fan. But his environmental book was mainstream
in the science community. I can point to hundred of science books supporting
every thing he wrote.

Bryant