kallend 2,106 #26 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Moving the goal posts, eh? No. Give me one reason why he would ask people to temper the effects of GW by reducing CO2 emissions if he did not think that manmade CO2 was a driver of GW. Hit me baby. Edit: Although I see where you've moved the goalposts. I guess the only way you'll accept that a person believes in anthropogenic global is if they say the exact words "Manmade CO2 emissions significantly warm the planet"? Wierd. This is rich. Do you really believe what you're saying? Do you really believe you appear clever?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #27 October 18, 2007 Quote Do you really believe you appear clever? A mere two days ago you were preaching: "Play the ball, not the player." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #28 October 18, 2007 Let's just take this back to where you jumped in, which was to counter my calling bullshit on: "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly." Ignoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #29 October 18, 2007 QuoteLet's just take this back to where you jumped in, which was to counter my calling bullshit on: "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly." Ignoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? Does this mean you now agree that the article and/or website implicity acknowledges AGW, and you are now just nitpicking over the meaning of "significantly"? If so, that's significant!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #30 October 18, 2007 QuoteIgnoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? If he thought it was insignificant why would he ak people to cut their emissions? You say you've looked through his site, does he strike you as the kind of person who would ask people to do things just for the look of the thing?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #31 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote Ignoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? If he thought it was insignificant why would he ak people to cut their emissions? I don't know. Why don't you write him. Let me know what he says. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #32 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteLet's just take this back to where you jumped in, which was to counter my calling bullshit on: "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly." Ignoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? Does this mean you now agree that the article and/or website implicity acknowledges AGW, and you are now just nitpicking over the meaning of "significantly"? Nope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #33 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Let's just take this back to where you jumped in, which was to counter my calling bullshit on: "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly." Ignoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? Does this mean you now agree that the article and/or website implicity acknowledges AGW, and you are now just nitpicking over the meaning of "significantly"? Nope. Would that be an absolute "nope", or just a kind-of, in-general "nope". Do you know the meaning of "implicit"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #34 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Let's just take this back to where you jumped in, which was to counter my calling bullshit on: "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly." Ignoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? Does this mean you now agree that the article and/or website implicity acknowledges AGW, and you are now just nitpicking over the meaning of "significantly"? Nope. Would that be an absolute "nope", or just a kind-of, in-general "nope". Do you know the meaning of "implicit"? I answered your question. Sorry you seem to be having such difficulty with it. Perhaps you should work on how you word your questions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote His statement was "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly." Can you identify the subject in that sentence? I guess you might be right if you ignore what he actually wrote. Yep, and he wrote implicitly, not explicitly. Given the current weight of scientific opinion in favour of anthropogenic warming it's probably fair to say that any article on the subject that does not explicitly deny anthropogenic warming implicitly acknowledges it. Stop! Stop! I'm getting dizzy. Quote Quote Nice dodge. Took me 10 seconds to find on Google. Try it and you might learn something, then again you are incapable of even finding information you contributed to a thread more than 10 minutes previously so you may have some problems. Regardless, my days of spoon feeding you information are over. Sorry sport, I asked because I went to his website and scanned a few of his articles on Global Warming. Didn't see anything about manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly. Seems like he's intentionally avoiding the subject. WOW they even now know what research scientists think!!!!!!! I am damed impressed!~!! .or is that depressed.......I am so confused."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Ignoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? If he thought it was insignificant why would he ak people to cut their emissions? I don't know. Why don't you write him. Let me know what he says. Why ask, they already know!!!! I got to get my foil hat out again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #37 October 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIgnoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? If he thought it was insignificant why would he ak people to cut their emissions? I don't know. Exactly. At this point all normal people have realised that the Dr, implicitly or otherwise, acknowledges the existence of anthropogenic warming. Except you. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he explicitly, implicitly or even just implies that he does not accept anthropogenic global warming?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 October 18, 2007 Quote Exactly. At this point all normal people have realised that the Dr, implicitly or otherwise, acknowledges the existence of anthropogenic warming. If you say so. Quote Except you. Oh. We're into mindreading now? DURRRR Quote Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he explicitly, implicitly or even just implies that he does not accept anthropogenic global warming? Asking to prove something doesn't exist? Do you have any proof that life never existed on Mars? BTW I have no issues with Daniel Bodkin. Just with how people "interpret" his words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #39 October 18, 2007 QuoteAsking to prove something doesn't exist? So then what are you arguing about, and why?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #40 October 18, 2007 Do you have any proof that life never existed on Mars? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #41 October 18, 2007 Since you say with such certainty that no evidence exists that the Dr is a denier, then you accept that he is not a denier, then you accept that he accepts anthropogenic global warming, then what have you been arguing about and why?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #42 October 18, 2007 What have you been arguing about? Why? On a different note, here's an excerpt from one of his recent articles: QuoteNowadays we hear daily from the media and through the media about the threat of global warming and its potentially dire effects on people and the diversity of life on Earth. The general tenor of these pronouncements is negative for people. You get the sense that people, especially modern technological people, have done wrong by Mother Nature. Having thus sinned against nature, we are warned that we will suffer the consequences. There will be massive flooding and terrible storms, destroying our homes and ways of life; millions if not billions of people displaced, homeless, wandering. Fresh water will be hard to find; we will thirst and our crops will fail. Pestilences and plagues confined to tropical climates will spread, and many of us will die. A dark picture of the future emerges that sounds like the Medieval explanation of the great plagues as mankind’s punishment for its sins. The obvious implication is that we environmental sinners must pay by becoming material and energy minimalists and misers. Doesn't sound like siding with the GW hysterics out there, either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #43 October 18, 2007 Because you have consistently given the impression that you did not think that he accepted manmade GW. Quote Doesn't sound like siding with the GW hysterics out there, either. No one ever said he was "hysterical"Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #44 October 18, 2007 Quote On a different note, here's an excerpt from one of his recent articles: Quote Nowadays we hear daily from the media and through the media about the threat of global warming and its potentially dire effects on people and the diversity of life on Earth. The general tenor of these pronouncements is negative for people. You get the sense that people, especially modern technological people, have done wrong by Mother Nature. Having thus sinned against nature, we are warned that we will suffer the consequences. There will be massive flooding and terrible storms, destroying our homes and ways of life; millions if not billions of people displaced, homeless, wandering. Fresh water will be hard to find; we will thirst and our crops will fail. Pestilences and plagues confined to tropical climates will spread, and many of us will die. A dark picture of the future emerges that sounds like the Medieval explanation of the great plagues as mankind’s punishment for its sins. The obvious implication is that we environmental sinners must pay by becoming material and energy minimalists and misers. Based on this excerpt, it sounds like the author is responding to anti-technological backlash. Do you have a link to the full article? Piqued my interest.VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #45 October 18, 2007 Here you go. http://www.danielbbotkin.com/archives/category/global-warming-and-life I wish more people speaking on this issue made as much sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #46 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Let's just take this back to where you jumped in, which was to counter my calling bullshit on: "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly." Ignoring the fact that you completely sidestepped the fact that this was about the article (essentially moving the goal posts), where on his website does acknolwledge that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly? Does this mean you now agree that the article and/or website implicity acknowledges AGW, and you are now just nitpicking over the meaning of "significantly"? Nope. Would that be an absolute "nope", or just a kind-of, in-general "nope". Do you know the meaning of "implicit"? I answered your question. Sorry you seem to be having such difficulty with it. Perhaps you should work on how you word your questions. Thanks - your reluctance to state an actual position makes your motive pretty transparent. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 October 18, 2007 Quote Because you have consistently given the impression that you did not think that he accepted manmade GW. Quote Doesn't sound like he's siding with the GW hysterics out there, either. No one ever said he was "hysterical" Al Gore - now there's a bonafide hysteric. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #48 October 18, 2007 Quote your reluctance to state an actual position makes your motive pretty transparent. I guess you're not interested in practicing the "Play the ball, not the player" that you preach.Do you own a gun? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #49 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote your reluctance to state an actual position makes your motive pretty transparent. I guess you're not interested in practicing the "Play the ball, not the player" that you preach. When dealing with someone who stuffs the ball up his shirt you kinda have to do both. In plain english, since you almost never actually state what your position is, what's the point in seriously debating you?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #50 October 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote your reluctance to state an actual position makes your motive pretty transparent. I guess you're not interested in practicing the "Play the ball, not the player" that you preach. When dealing with someone who stuffs the ball up his shirt you kinda have to do both. In plain english, since you almost never actually state what your position is, what's the point in seriously debating you? You ask me questions.... I answer them... then you get all butt hurt. Go figure. Oh yeah - just because you make up lies about me, that doesn't make them true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
