Mountain Bikers' Alleged "Love of Nature"

On Apr 7, 2:35*pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
[snip]
MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN

How many months in a winter there Scotty?
Socks

"Bill Sornson" wrote
You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists) don't
take the sun into account at all in their so-called calculations and
projections.

And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.

IPCC Climate Change 2001:
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

Mann et al. (1998, 2000) used a multi-correlation technique and found
significant correlations with solar and, less so, with the volcanic forcing
over parts of the palaeo-record. The authors concluded that natural forcings
have been important on decadal-to-century time-scales, but that the dramatic
warming of the 20th century correlates best and very significantly with
greenhouse gas forcing. The use of multiple correlations avoids the
possibility of spuriously high correlations due to the common trend in the
solar and temperature time-series (Laut and Gunderman, 1998). Attempts to
estimate the contributions of natural and anthropogenic forcing to 20th
century temperature evolution simultaneously are discussed in Section 12.4.

And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.


"Bill Sornson" wrote
LOL Grow up, sonny.

Well Billy, there are a couple here who have come to your defense and
claimed that you aren't necessarily a LIAR, you might just be a

MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN

So which is it John Boy? Are you a Liar or are you a Moron?

Both perhaps.

We await your decision.

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
Well Billy, there are a couple here who have come to your defense and
claimed that you aren't necessarily a LIAR, you might just be a

MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN

So which is it John Boy? Are you a Liar or are you a Moron?

Both perhaps.

We await your decision.


"Bill Sornson" wrote
I give. Your rapier wit and obvious knowledge on all matters
meteorological are too much.

You still haven't answered the question.

If you don't decide, I will decide for you.

On 2008-04-07, Dan wrote:
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote
You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists) don't
take the sun into account at all in their so-called calculations and
projections.

And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.

That doesn't make him a LIAR; he could JUST be ignorant... That happens
to a lot of folks who get their science news from talk radio!

Dan


From a practical standpoint, there's very little difference
between being a liar and being deliberately ignorant.

There's no excusing anyone who uses (mis)information from talk
radio, or even Faux News, in a discussion of public policy.

There are too many better sources of information, though many
of them require the use of exotic skills like "reading" and
"thinking".

Cheers, Wolf.

Wolf Leverich wrote:
On 2008-04-07, Dan wrote:
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote
You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists) don't
take the sun into account at all in their so-called calculations and
projections.
And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.
That doesn't make him a LIAR; he could JUST be ignorant... That happens
to a lot of folks who get their science news from talk radio!

Dan


From a practical standpoint, there's very little difference
between being a liar and being deliberately ignorant.

There's no excusing anyone who uses (mis)information from talk
radio, or even Faux News, in a discussion of public policy.

There are too many better sources of information, though many
of them require the use of exotic skills like "reading" and
"thinking".

We are discussing "Sorni" [1] here, no? Requesting that he thinks for
himself may be a bit much.

[1] Bill Sornson for the non-rec.bicycles.* regulars.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Wolf Leverich wrote:
On 2008-04-07, Dan wrote:
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote
You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists) don't
take the sun into account at all in their so-called calculations and
projections.
And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.
That doesn't make him a LIAR; he could JUST be ignorant... That happens
to a lot of folks who get their science news from talk radio!

Dan


From a practical standpoint, there's very little difference
between being a liar and being deliberately ignorant.

There's no excusing anyone who uses (mis)information from talk
radio, or even Faux News, in a discussion of public policy.

There are too many better sources of information, though many
of them require the use of exotic skills like "reading" and
"thinking".

Cheers, Wolf.

Well, willfully ignorant is a problem. You may know this guy more than
I do, probably do, in fact. However, not all people are trained in
sciences, let alone biology or geology. A lot of the material IS hard
to understand, and for the people who do not study it, counterintuitive.
All these people HAVE is to be misled like sheep by talk radio...

Dan Nadan? wrote:
Wolf Leverich wrote:
On 2008-04-07, Dan wrote:
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote
You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists)
don't take the sun into account at all in their so-called
calculations and projections.
And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.
That doesn't make him a LIAR; he could JUST be ignorant... That
happens to a lot of folks who get their science news from talk radio!

Dan


From a practical standpoint, there's very little difference
between being a liar and being deliberately ignorant.

There's no excusing anyone who uses (mis)information from talk
radio, or even Faux News, in a discussion of public policy.

There are too many better sources of information, though many
of them require the use of exotic skills like "reading" and
"thinking".

Cheers, Wolf.

Well, willfully ignorant is a problem. You may know this guy more than
I do, probably do, in fact.

Yes, we on rec.bicycles.* know Bill "Sorni" Sornson all too well. He has
a few good one-liner quips, but is otherwise a tool of the right-wing media.

However, not all people are trained in
sciences, let alone biology or geology. A lot of the material IS hard
to understand, and for the people who do not study it, counterintuitive.
All these people HAVE is to be misled like sheep by talk radio...

Some people hate science because they can not understand it. They
generally turn to fundamentalism of one kind or another, ceding
responsibility for thinking to someone else.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
"DI" wrote
How dare you to offer some proof. They won't accept it because they
have their minds made up already.


2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
LiveScience Staff Writer

January 16, 2008


The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this century,
NASA
scientists announced today.

OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed.
It was all over the news recently.

Mike

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote
Stick your thermometer next to a generator or AC unit and you'll get high
readings, too.

But you won't get high bore hole temperatures, melting ice caps, high
ocean temperatures, high satellite derrived temperatures, changes in the
time of onset of the seasons, melting glaciers world wide, and alterations
in the global weather patterns amongst other visible changes.

And not realizing this makes you a MMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRROOOOONNNN

Or a tool of the right-wing media.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful