Just out of curiosity, Sam, on what do you base your rejection of the
premise that humans contribute to climate change?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
He didn't end up agreeing, he always believed in AGW and the
consensus. He just wanted to prove the paper was
https://www.facebook.com/mhudack/posts/10152148792566194
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
Science, logic, fact, common sense etc.
BTW, I do not reject the possibility that humans can contribute to
climate disruption.
What I reject is the so-called proof that it exists or it's mans
doing. When someone presents actual science to back up that theory I
will have a look.
.
On Fri, Jun
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Science, logic, fact, common sense etc.
BTW, I do not reject the possibility that humans can contribute to
climate disruption.
What I reject is the so-called proof that it exists or it's mans
doing. When someone presents
I think anyone who believes the climate is not trending towards being
warmer is blind. Key word there is 'trending'. Yes, some years may be
cooler, or may not necessarily be warmer. But, when you are talking about
something that changes over thousands of years, saying, 'it is not warmer
this year
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Sam wrote:
BTW, I do not reject the possibility that humans can contribute to
climate disruption.
So you accept that there is a bullet in the gun.
What I reject is the so-called proof that it exists or it's mans
doing. When someone presents actual science
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
The debate should be, 'Are humans contributing to that
change,
Yes.
and if so, how much?'
Some.
(That was easy)
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Cameron Childress camer...@gmail.com
wrote:
That is because the proof of where the bullet was located comes at the end
of russian roulette. I get it though - you prefer to wait and see what
happens. This is probably because the gun is pointed at your kids and
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, GMoney wrote:
Not sure i buy that alarmist timeline. Perhaps his great grand kids.
Or their kids But yes...
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
So, GMoney...
To paraphrase you, when did you read the hundreds upon hundreds of studies
who's findings support this conclusion, and deem every one of the to be
scientific and credible ?
Rick
On 6/6/2014 10:33 AM, GMoney wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
I have not, Rick. Never said I did.
I have read the abstract on a half dozen or so of them, and read maybe half
of one or two of themi was able to grasp some of it, others went a
little over my head.
So to form my own opinion on this, i try to read articles by scientists
that attempt to
cffunction access=public name=qry_peopleGet output=false
returntype=query
cfargument name=personKeyList type=string required=no default=
cfargument name=emailAddress type=string required=no default=
cfargument name=returnvariable type=string required=no
default=qry_peopleGet
cfquery
Maybe it's just the weird format of your pasted message but, i don't see
the where clause anywhere...?
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Matthew Smith chedders...@gmail.com wrote:
cffunction access=public name=qry_peopleGet output=false
returntype=query
cfargument name=personKeyList
So, after reading only half of one or two of the hundreds upon
hundreds of studies,
who's [sic] findings support this conclusion [ that global warming, now
called 'climate change']
is real and is caused by human activity, and only some of the half of
the one or two
that you did read, did you
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com
wrote:
So, after reading only half of one or two of the hundreds upon
hundreds of studies,
who's [sic] findings support this conclusion [ that global warming, now
called 'climate change']
is real and is caused by
I've read a fair amount of the IPCC reports and looked at the studies that
have the strongest conclusions in them. The IPCC seems to have taken a
pretty conservative approach and chosen very sound studies to support their
work. I am not a climate scientist, so many of the studies are outside my
I don't need to. Out of the 3,896 used to form the consensus only 64 endorse AGW
The real questions is what proof did you see that convinced you AGW is
real. Specifically, like CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I'm not even sure
what other theories there are.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:33 AM, GMoney
Climate cooling then climate warming then climate change and now it's
called climate disruption.
The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago.
But you are correct, what evidence do we have that man is causing the
climate to change?
More importantly, what should we do if it is true.
The US has
These are great questions. I don't know the answers. I tend to think a lot
has already been done. I tend not to share the alarmist view of even some
scientists who seem to think their conclusions are destined to bear out 100
years from now.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Sam
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Childress camer...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, I do not reject the possibility that humans can contribute to
climate disruption.
So you accept that there is a bullet in the gun.
Hyperbole?
What I reject is the so-called proof that it exists or it's
That was awesome
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Rick Faircloth
r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote:
So, after reading only half of one or two of the hundreds upon
hundreds of studies,
who's [sic] findings support this conclusion [ that global warming, now
called 'climate change']
is real
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago.
In a system (climate) that takes thousands (if not hundred of thousands) or
years to change, 10 years is the equivalent to the blink of an eye, and,
when mapped out relative to the
Why has there been a pause in average surface temperature over the last 10
years? There are answers to that question (and it is a great question):
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
Cheers,
Judah
On Fri, Jun 6,
Scott, we used to think that it took thousands of years for climate to
change. And that is what happens, as I understand it, in normal times. In
very extreme times (asteroid impact, world-wide series of volcanic
eruptions, etc) we've seen that things can change surprisingly quickly,
over the
But isn't that your argument? A few warm years proves man has caused
the planet to heat up?
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago.
In a system
That's not science, it's a wild guess. Must be hiding in the oceans. Too funny.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Judah McAuley ju...@wiredotter.com wrote:
Why has there been a pause in average surface temperature over the last 10
years? There are answers to that question (and it is a
It has been more than a 'few warm year' and my argument has never been that
man 'caused' it, rather that man has contributed to it.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
But isn't that your argument? A few warm years proves man has caused
the planet to heat up?
.
I understand that , I was simply trying to show that when you are dealing
with a cycle - and it does appear to be cyclical - that takes tens of
thousands of years, 10 years is really nothing.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Judah McAuley ju...@wiredotter.com wrote:
Scott, we used to think
From the article Jonah posted:
'The long-term trendâchange over the course of a century or moreâis what
defines âglobal warming,â not the change from year to year or even decade
to decade.'
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
But isn't that your argument?
'Wild guess'? A bit hyperbolic, no?
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not science, it's a wild guess. Must be hiding in the oceans. Too
funny.
.
--
Scott Stroz
---
You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder
Temperature went up a little in the 80's and then leveled out. Is the
fact that the temperature didn't go down that makes your point valid?
Because it hasn't risen in half of those years.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been more than a 'few warm
Sam lacks an understanding of thermodynamics. His daughter should be
getting to physical sciences in school soon, though, so maybe he'll have a
better understanding once she gets there and they go over 4 laws of
thermodynamics and Boyle's Law.
Cheers,
Judah
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM,
'Went up a bit in the 80's'?
When you say stuff like this, it makes me think you really have no
clue...about anything other than what you conservative overlords have told
you.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Temperature went up a little in the 80's and then
30 years ago they were worried about global cooling, now it's warming
or disruptions. You need to pick a range and stick with it.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
From the article Jonah posted:
'The long-term trendâchange over the course of a century
The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the
Earthâs surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate
cyclesâa series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the
lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillationâcaused shifts in ocean
circulation patterns that
Too cute.
When scientist pondered if the oceans oscillation patterns added to
warmer temperatures the left laughed historically. Now some scientists
made a model that failed and they're using the failure as an
explanation. Please.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Judah McAuley
I dunno, does common core apply to physical science classes too? :)
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Judah McAuley ju...@wiredotter.com wrote:
Sam lacks an understanding of thermodynamics. His daughter should be
getting to physical sciences in school soon, though, so maybe he'll have a
So you've realized you're argument is flawed and need a graceful way to bow out?
How much do you think it went up since the 80's or 200 years ago?
More than a bit?
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
'Went up a bit in the 80's'?
When you say stuff like
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. What are you talking about?
According to this -
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
- it has gone up about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012. Is
that more than 'a bit'? I don't really
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. What are you talking about?
I am amazed these conversations are still going on. Don't get me wrong I
like to see the list with a little life in it... but anonymous person Sam
is and always has
I get his general gist and I like that he calls out Vice for the good
things they are doing. I don't understand his criticism of Ezra Klein and
Vox, though. I go to Vox (which I don't really read, though I should) and I
don't see anything like what he's saying: http://www.vox.com/
I see the top
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. What are you talking about?
According to this -
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
- it has gone up about 1.5 degrees
I don't know about VOX you may be right, but I see the whole someone
should fix this comment as someone in news should fix this. If someone
says someone should fix a broken app I assume they are saying a developer
should fix it. You can read something else into it and that's fine too.
The whole
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. What are you talking
about?
According to this -
Based on your idiotic claims, you must believe AGW is proven without a
doubt. But rather than providing scientific evidence to back up your
theory, you try ridicule. You should really be ashamed.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Cameron Childress camer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014
I guess I had presumed that he worked in news. It just seems to fall into a
trend of decrying the decline of journalism (Dan Rather was no Walter
Cronkite and David Gregory is no Dan Rather) without anyone actually saying
what to do about it. I agree that listicles are atrocious. Buzzfeed is like
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Sam wrote:
Based on your idiotic claims, you must believe AGW is proven without a
doubt. But rather than providing scientific evidence to back up your
theory, you try ridicule. You should really be ashamed.
I believe you! You don't have to prove you are a
I cant believe you havent put him in a killfile yet.
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Cameron Childress camer...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe you! You don't have to prove you are a troll to me any longer. I
totally buy it. Sold!
...
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I canât believe you havenât put him in a killfile yet.
I don't really do killfiles. I like to know what the loony tunes are up to.
~|
Order the Adobe
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
I has fluctuated over the last 500 years, but has been trending higher.
OK
No, you are talking about a snapshot of data, specifically, 'the last
decade' you tend to go on about. I am talking about the current warming
trend
Aw, you simpletons are so cute when you're flustered.
Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter
how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the
pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking
victorious.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter
how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the
pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking
victorious.
You have
It is a good saying though. Just overused.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter
how good I am at chess, the pigeon is
It was appropriate. I'll retire it now.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter
how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just
And your sources for this science, logic and fact are?
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Science, logic, fact, common sense etc.
BTW, I do not reject the possibility that humans can contribute to
climate disruption.
What I reject is the so-called proof that it
Even though I have a family member who is the main page producer at
CNN.com, I find that I have little tolerance for news websites any
more.
That being said, I don't find the CNN.com main page, when I do look at
it, to be horribly biased or as involved with kidnapped white girls
as the TV shows
FWIW, lists are not anything new.
Don't you all remember this book, from 1977?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/940251.The_People_s_Almanac_Presents_the_Book_of_Lists
It still holds a place of honor on my reading room bookshelf.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Maureen
Am I just missing where?
cffunction access=public name=qry_peopleGet output=false
returntype=query
cfargument name=personKeyList type=string required=no default=
cfargument name=emailAddress type=string required=no default=
cfargument name=returnvariable type=string required=no
Am I just missing where?
What's the specific error you're getting? Just from a glance at the
code I see you're naming the function and the query with the same name
which may be getting things confused in the code. I'd change the name
of the query to be different from the name of the function
59 matches
Mail list logo
