Now you dont have to slog thru page after page of mind-numbing obfuscation, RG.
You owe me a beer.
He is insecure about his intelligence. He complains about the engineers he works with who tell him what parts to change. Complains about them thinking they know more than he does.
I keep asking him to tell me where he works. I have experience with several 16 and 32 bit controllers.
I don't know why he won't tell me.
I'll bet windmills have more effect on changing the climate than CO2 does...
"If any" is not saying none. My whole point of clarifying this is simple. I have never said we have no effect, and I will not allow Random Propaganda Guy to misrepresent my position. Next, he will claim he has proof to call me a denier. That, I believe is his goal.
I believe CO2 has a small effect on temperature. I acknowledge I could be wrong. Temperature has an effect on climate, but now it would probably be impossible to ascertain the extent that CO2 plays. The "if" is because I keep an open mind that some say CO2 has no effect, and others even claim it has a cooling effect.
My mind is open. Is yours?
You think I'm joking?I'll bet windmills have more effect on changing the climate than CO2 does...
I found one study that quantified the effects of the reduction of wind force on the downstream land. It said that the warming effect was 1/6th as much as the fossil fuel it replaced. This study was using CO2 sensitivity levels that I think are bogus.
What if this study was correct in the degree that reducing the power of the wind has on climate, but was wrong in using the alarmist levels for CO2? I will contend it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could.
It is possible that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.
It is possible that the reptillian overlords are getting ready to eat us.
You go with your bad self trying to prove that.
It is going to replace my siggy, as one of the most monumentally stupid things you have ever posted.
HOnestly, I couldn't find it.
It is lost to the thousands of similar posts out of the 36,000+ you have made here.
My memory of it is that you said there was something akin to a one in a billion chance that humans were having a noticable affect on warming trends.
"Small, if any" seems to suffice.
LOL...
The way you log peoples posts for future use, you couldn't find it.
That's because it doesn't exist asshole!
Please don't attribute words or ideas to be that I didn't say. That probably pisses me off more than other types of personal attacks you guys do to me.
Small does not = none.
'if any' implies that 'not any' is the assumed option ie you default to the negative being true.
My memory of that is pretty solid. That I can't find it, by no means is conclusive for you to claim you didn't say something like it.
But, hey, let's be fair then:
State your position then, so I can bookmark it and not make the error in the future. I would far prefer to fairly represent your views than not, despite what you seem to think.
Logic? Seriously? You're going to try logic with WC?
I wonder if they have the pictures of 4 million years ago. Because liberals have showed us that they are more interested in factual data than abusing their position to push their views/position.
That would indeed do it. Thank you, and I will be in San Antone next friday, and austin most of this week. PM me.Now you dont have to slog thru page after page of mind-numbing obfuscation, RG.
You owe me a beer.
That is pretty much it.
Let's try restating that "if any" and see if the implication is a bit clearer.
"The number of women in the world willing to have sex with Wild Cobra is small, if any."
"if any" would appear to indeed impart the "it is probably zero, but maybe could be a small number" idea.
OTOH, it could just be one of the "i said that, but mean something else" bits.
He has me on ignore again. Does that mean I won?
It's for everyone else's reading pleasure.
Depends on what you consider a picture. They use very stratified objects to take samples from older times. Ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks, etc. They take the various samples, cross check them and they are consistent across mediums. If you want to say that the same cosmic monkey that put fossils in the earth did tree rings and ice too then you can join the biblical literalist types.
If they find a piece of amber with air pockets in it that carbon dates its formation to 4 million years ago then I think its compelling evidence of air composition from 4 million years ago.
The new guiness commercials are far inferior methinks. You still have your thing for jar jar binks?
That's what I was originally looking for. I've got too many gifs to look through them now. lol
Care to make your point? I'm guessing that it has to do with changing climates in the past being natural, correct? I'll put it to you the simplest way possible. Natural fire occurs, correct? What does a natural fire started by lightning have to say about the possibility of another fire being arson?
My point is anytime, you use 4 million years ago, you lose all credibility.
That has been the standing view for 5 million years to now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
