On Aug 2, 4:46*pm, BDR529 jake wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Aug 2, 3:52 pm, BDR529 jake wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 2, 4:32 am, BDR529 jake wrote:
Catoni wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
* "My junior high school science book reads,
"Science has no place for stories. *A billion
anecdotes are not a single data entry."
The data show warming. *It's a free country,
you and your fossil fool buddies can swap all
the tall tales you want, just don't confuse
them with an organized data collection."
* Reply:
* * * * * * * * * *So Roger, you are saying that we should never
believe newspapers, or the television news... they are all no better
then your local Supermarket tabloid like World Weekly News out of
Boca *Raton, Florida.
* *Even if it is documented by other respected news agencies like the
BBC, API, and others, complete with photos. Those agencies are
crap. * *never believe the news....
*...Unless full scientific study has been done on the news stories and
all pertinent data collected and analyzed... *and "peer reviewed" and
repeatability tests done, and satellite photos taken and research
teams sent into the area in question, with follow-up studies done by
government agencies and intelligence services...
* * ... then maybe you can believe them..... right Roger ????
LOL
* How about when they warn us about Global Warming and how important
Cap & Trade is to save the World?
* *Still crap ??
* How about the leftist Global Warming stories in this group that do
not have "Data" ???? *Crap too... right ???
Catoni and other skeptics in these newsgroups:
Maybe you should see global warming as the patient earth getting a
little bit sicker every year. Temperatures go slightly up and if we wait
long enough we arrive in the well known danger zones. At least, this is
what scientists tells us. Many take this as a fact, some don't, and then
we call you a global warming skeptic.
How do you do this in general? The following is maybe not 100% analogous
to the global warming question, but it is a situation that many people
may face at some point in their life. It is not meant as scaremongering,
instead, it is about decision making and risk assessment.
Suppose that you are the patient and that your physician identifies
something peculiar in your most recent blood test. His advice is that
you should radically change your habits and take medication which causes
some daily annoyance for the rest of your life.
First thing that should be done, and I doubt I would even have to ask
him to do it, would be to re-run the test. *Mistakes happen all the
time.
A conformist would accept the doctor's advice because there are 2
independent opinions that confirm the observation of a known disease..
You do love to make **** up, don't you? *Where did the second
independent opinion come from, his partner reading the same lab
report? {snip crap]
Just try for once to read the entire story before you draw any
conclusions. Just try.

•• He did
* * You lose.

He did not because he didn't explain the benefit of being a skeptic
rather than a conformist.

•• He owes you no explanation least
of all to a jackass like you.

Last Post wrote:
On Aug 2, 4:46 pm, BDR529 jake wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Aug 2, 3:52 pm, BDR529 jake wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 2, 4:32 am, BDR529 jake wrote:
Catoni wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
"My junior high school science book reads,
"Science has no place for stories. A billion
anecdotes are not a single data entry."
The data show warming. It's a free country,
you and your fossil fool buddies can swap all
the tall tales you want, just don't confuse
them with an organized data collection."
Reply:
So Roger, you are saying that we should never
believe newspapers, or the television news... they are all no better
then your local Supermarket tabloid like World Weekly News out of
Boca Raton, Florida.
Even if it is documented by other respected news agencies like the
BBC, API, and others, complete with photos. Those agencies are
crap. never believe the news....
...Unless full scientific study has been done on the news stories and
all pertinent data collected and analyzed... and "peer reviewed" and
repeatability tests done, and satellite photos taken and research
teams sent into the area in question, with follow-up studies done by
government agencies and intelligence services...
... then maybe you can believe them..... right Roger ????
LOL
How about when they warn us about Global Warming and how important
Cap & Trade is to save the World?
Still crap ??
How about the leftist Global Warming stories in this group that do
not have "Data" ???? Crap too... right ???
Catoni and other skeptics in these newsgroups:
Maybe you should see global warming as the patient earth getting a
little bit sicker every year. Temperatures go slightly up and if we wait
long enough we arrive in the well known danger zones. At least, this is
what scientists tells us. Many take this as a fact, some don't, and then
we call you a global warming skeptic.
How do you do this in general? The following is maybe not 100% analogous
to the global warming question, but it is a situation that many people
may face at some point in their life. It is not meant as scaremongering,
instead, it is about decision making and risk assessment.
Suppose that you are the patient and that your physician identifies
something peculiar in your most recent blood test. His advice is that
you should radically change your habits and take medication which causes
some daily annoyance for the rest of your life.
First thing that should be done, and I doubt I would even have to ask
him to do it, would be to re-run the test. Mistakes happen all the
time.
A conformist would accept the doctor's advice because there are 2
independent opinions that confirm the observation of a known disease.
You do love to make **** up, don't you? Where did the second
independent opinion come from, his partner reading the same lab
report? {snip crap]
Just try for once to read the entire story before you draw any
conclusions. Just try.
•• He did
You lose.
He did not because he didn't explain the benefit of being a skeptic
rather than a conformist.

•• He owes you no explanation least
of all to a jackass like you.

Translation: you can not refute one word because, AGW deniers are liars,

Q

--
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!

On Aug 2, 5:13*pm, BDR529 jake wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Aug 2, 4:46 pm, BDR529 jake wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Aug 2, 3:52 pm, BDR529 jake wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 2, 4:32 am, BDR529 jake wrote:
Catoni wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
* "My junior high school science book reads,
"Science has no place for stories. *A billion
anecdotes are not a single data entry."
The data show warming. *It's a free country,
you and your fossil fool buddies can swap all
the tall tales you want, just don't confuse
them with an organized data collection."
* Reply:
* * * * * * * * * *So Roger, you are saying that we should never
believe newspapers, or the television news... they are all no better
then your local Supermarket tabloid like World Weekly News out of
Boca *Raton, Florida.
* *Even if it is documented by other respected news agencies like the
BBC, API, and others, complete with photos. Those agencies are
crap. * *never believe the news....
*...Unless full scientific study has been done on the news stories and
all pertinent data collected and analyzed... *and "peer reviewed" and
repeatability tests done, and satellite photos taken and research
teams sent into the area in question, with follow-up studies done by
government agencies and intelligence services...
* * ... then maybe you can believe them..... right Roger ????
LOL
* How about when they warn us about Global Warming and how important
Cap & Trade is to save the World?
* *Still crap ??
* How about the leftist Global Warming stories in this group that do
not have "Data" ???? *Crap too... right ???
Catoni and other skeptics in these newsgroups:
Maybe you should see global warming as the patient earth getting a
little bit sicker every year. Temperatures go slightly up and if we wait
long enough we arrive in the well known danger zones. At least, this is
what scientists tells us. Many take this as a fact, some don't, and then
we call you a global warming skeptic.
How do you do this in general? The following is maybe not 100% analogous
to the global warming question, but it is a situation that many people
may face at some point in their life. It is not meant as scaremongering,
instead, it is about decision making and risk assessment.
Suppose that you are the patient and that your physician identifies
something peculiar in your most recent blood test. His advice is that
you should radically change your habits and take medication which causes
some daily annoyance for the rest of your life.
First thing that should be done, and I doubt I would even have to ask
him to do it, would be to re-run the test. *Mistakes happen all the
time.
A conformist would accept the doctor's advice because there are 2
independent opinions that confirm the observation of a known disease.
You do love to make **** up, don't you? *Where did the second
independent opinion come from, his partner reading the same lab
report? {snip crap]
Just try for once to read the entire story before you draw any
conclusions. Just try.
•• He did
* * You lose.
He did not because he didn't explain the benefit of being a skeptic
rather than a conformist.

•• He owes you no explanation least
* * of all to a jackass like you.

Translation: you can not refute one word because, AGW deniers are liars,

•• That would be good if there was anything
to refute. Why don't you post something
for you to refute??