bigmc6000
About
- Username
- bigmc6000
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 767
Reactions
Comments
-
At least they are benefiting from a tax that we CHOSE to pay
-
Quote: Originally Posted by addabox But any contention is going to piss some people off-- be it declaring Mac users blind fan boys, or thinking that MS is clueless, or figuring that Apple leaving the CoC is pointless posturing predicated on a myt…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by addabox I don't think that's true. You can disagree with someone without bitter invective or name calling. Mel obviously doesn't share your (and others) politics, but he didn't belittle you (or anyone). I didn't…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by melgross Ok guys, if this continuous invective continues, I'm going to shut the thread down. Says the pot to the kettle. Seriously, you're as much responsible for the thread going to where it is as anyone else.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by melgross Are you being politically naive, or are you attempting to act that way? We all know that 100% "pure" bills are impossible. The closest time was during the first five years or so of the Bush administration w…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by weisbear I did not know that! Good feed! In this part of the world (South and Southwest)people keep the A/C is running full and windows are closed in all kinds of mild weather. What part of fuel economy is wasted o…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by melgross Conservation is still a big part of his agenda, but Republicans still oppose it. That's rather misleading - point to a bill that is 100% conservation and does nothing else but promotes conservation. There …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by weisbear August 2008, when nationwide gasoline prices topped $4.00/gallon in many places, CANDIDATE Obama mentioned a way to reduce (perhaps the easiest way) fuel consumption. Once elected and fuel prices retreated to …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by fdp3 From 2003-2008 the price of a barrel of crude rose from $25 to $147. You're suggesting this was a benefit because it stimulated research into alternatives ... On a completely technical standpoint this is true a…
-
I'm not going to get into the "is global warming man made and can we control it" argument I just have 1 question as to what is wrong with what the CoC wants. The CoC wants this "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to force the E.P.A. to arrange a …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by libertyforall Global Warming "science" has shown to be faulty, especially that presented by the U.N.: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=262 Apple had best get a clue before listening to Al Gore: h…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anantksundaram No. Your assertions are junk. I would not even elevate it to calling it junk science. You want to understand serious scientific dissent on AGW? Read, for starters, the works of Prof. Lindzen at MIT or…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Gazoobee This is a pretty silly comment on the face of it. On a planet of ten billion, or amongst a community of millions of scientists, "thousands of dissenters" is an irrelevant amount. It's also self evident that …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse Let me rephrase the question (so that you can perhaps not focus your reply in denying a consensus): Why do you personally believe that your position is rejected by so many in the climatology community, su…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by DESuserIGN Raising hypothesis from the dead does not amount to new "findings," (as your posts so eloquently demonstrate.) It's not old data, it's new data. And the fact that you are not sourcing an article to refut…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anantksundaram Where in the article you cited does it say that the start date for this phenomenon is being pushed back to 2015? (Answer: Nowhere). Have you seen the data for the past few decades? (My guess: No). You…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by DESuserIGN Point #7 seems prescient, "The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the so…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle You keep repeating assertions that have been discredited for quite some time and therefore are not scientifically accepted today. That is why your links are derided. They are sheer nonsense at this point i…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anantksundaram Do you read your own links!? In case you didn't realize, the study that you linked to says that AGW is happening over the long haul, but temporarily moderated because of exogenous factors. Here are the t…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse Regarding the "consensus", see my comments above. (You know, the ones you responded to but don't seem to have actually read.) No, I don't want you to post "verbiage" (which is exactly what it is), I'd lik…