http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
hmmmmmmmmmm! Very Interesting. Think they are afraid of hearing another opinion??????????
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
:rolleyes:
According to what they were predicting in the 70's the earth was going to be in terrible shape by now and the life expectancy was only going to be to age 41 if we didn't do something about global cooling. It's all BS pure and simple and it will change again in another 10yrs back to global cooling. What it all boils down to is no one knows for sure and all we need to worry about in all honesty is pollution as far as our water and the air. All these extreme measures are useless because Mother Nature will compensate if we go the wrong way which this could well be. They way they are talking now they are wanting to eliminate the things plants need to survive and eliminate nature by controlling flatulence in animals. How ridiculous is that? Isn't that part of their digestion process? Didn't they also find out that feeding animal parts to cows is what is a major cause of mad cow disease? Why are they considering that again? Cows are not meant to eat flesh they are grazing animals they eat vegetation.
It takes a special kind of moron to deny that the mean temperature of the earth is increasing. That we allow these people to breed offends me to the core.
What 1/10 or 1/7 of a degree in the last 100yrs or something like that.... :rolleyes:
I won't waste my time belaboring the point because you're obviously not quite bright enough to get what's right in front of you.
Care to guess how much of the Antartic ice shelf has been lost in the past 20 years?
Care to guess how many times it's done it in the past? And, hum, let me think, when was it that it was getting too thick and gonna tilt the earth off its axis and we were all gonna freeze?
Like I said...not the brightest crayon in the box; she actually believes that global cooling bullshit myth. :rolleyes:
I do? Where did I say that? :confused:
Quote from: me on April 24, 2009, 05:03:04 PM
I do? Where did I say that? :confused:
In your post from 1:17. What are you, senile?
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/global_warming_cartoon.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 05:08:48 PM
Quote from: me on April 24, 2009, 05:03:04 PM
I do? Where did I say that? :confused:
In your post from 1:17. What are you, senile?
I might have said it sarcastically like here. If you're talking about the grape thing. :razz:
Quote from: mcgonser on April 24, 2009, 05:46:48 PM
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/global_warming_cartoon.jpg)
:biggrin:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/global_warming.jpg)
Quote from: me on April 24, 2009, 06:10:16 PM
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 05:08:48 PM
Quote from: me on April 24, 2009, 05:03:04 PM
I do? Where did I say that? :confused:
In your post from 1:17. What are you, senile?
I might have said it sarcastically like here. If you're talking about the grape thing. :razz:
No, the myth isn't about global cooling per se but about whether or not there was ever any sort of consensus amongst climatologists that it was an issue and most dismissed it as nonsense.
It was just as much a myth as the global warming thing is.
Think about this Ex. No where have I seen it mentioned about the world clock which is off by so many minutes every year which causes the calendar to actually become off. The adjustment which was created by there only being 28 days in Feb isn't even enough so therefor the seasons would seem to change over a period of time when in all actuality the calendar is off not the season. Now I know the scientists realize this but there is no money to be made if they say that but by screaming global warming or global cooling so they go with the flow of which ever politician is going to line their pockets and give them grants and maybe that 15 minutes of fame. All they have to do is doctor a finding here and there and hope no one finds out information to the contrary which is seems someone always does. Laugh if you will but there is so much conflicting information out there it's getting ridiculous.
Quote from: me on April 26, 2009, 12:16:36 PM
Think about this Ex. No where have I seen it mentioned about the world clock which is off by so many minutes every year which causes the calendar to actually become off. The adjustment which was created by there only being 28 days in Feb isn't even enough so therefor the seasons would seem to change over a period of time when in all actuality the calendar is off not the season. Now I know the scientists realize this but there is no money to be.......
Now wait a minute. A year is 365.2423 days long. That's why we have a leap year every four years (except double zero years not divisible by four.) The year is determined by the amount of time it takes the earth to orbit the sun. A leap second is added now and then (approximately once every 18 months, but you have to look at a couple of centuries to get that average) to bring Greenwich Mean Time into sync with Solar Time. This is necessary because the earth is not completely uniform in its rotation. Two different causes, see? Orbit and rotation. The two don't accrue because they measure different things -- the amount of time it takes the earth to orbit the sun, and the amount of time it takes the earth to revolve on its axis. Regardless, the leap day and the leap second together keep the seasons running accurately enough for Microsoft. Granted the calendar gains a little time over the course of four years, and the clock gains a little over the course of 18 months. But then we put it back. The first day of spring will never be August 26th.
Leap year only takes care of part of the difference so it still is off.
Quote from: me on April 26, 2009, 03:19:00 PM
Leap year only takes care of part of the difference so it still is off.
Now look. 365.2423 days is just under one-fourth of a day too much. So every four years we add a day. Now after about a century or two .0077 day adds up to a day too much, skip the leap day for the year ending in double zero, and you are back to even. What is still off?
You're relying on the computer too much again. Go back into some of the older books where things haven't been changed and see what it says.
Quote from: me on April 26, 2009, 03:58:03 PM
You're relying on the computer too much again. Go back into some of the older books where things haven't been changed and see what it says.
Excuse me? Are you saying that on-line information sites such as www.timeanddate.com and tf.nist.gov are less to be trusted than some book you read thirty years ago? If you have a source that contradicts my information, let's see it.
I have found that certain events and things have been changed as time passes and younger people don't know and they think the older generation is full of it. You might be about my age or not, I have no clue, but there have been things I know have happened and how they happened that I have looked for online and either found them changed or not there at all. All online info cannot be trusted is what I'm saying.
If you think there is some vast internet conspiracy to distort something as easily proved as the length of time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun, or the earth to spin on its axis, you have bigger problems than why leap days and seconds exist.
I agree that many sites contain distortions of facts, but these sites are usually promoting some particular ideology. Look for your facts on fact-based sites, and always cross check. That is, get a second source. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly do not count as separate sources. Neither do Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.
And always remember -- shiny side out. Wear the tin-foil hat shiny side out.
Who the hell is Keith Olbermann and what does O'Reilley, Limbaugh, and Chris Mathews have to do with this?
Quote from: LOsborne on April 26, 2009, 08:24:38 PM
If you think there is some vast internet conspiracy to distort something as easily proved as the length of time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun, or the earth to spin on its axis, you have bigger problems than why leap days and seconds exist.
You're wasting your time. See what I mean by 'these people shouldn't be allowed to breed'?
Quote from: me on April 26, 2009, 12:16:36 PM
Now I know the scientists realize this but there is no money to be made if they say that but by screaming global warming or global cooling so they go with the flow of which ever politician is going to line their pockets and give them grants and maybe that 15 minutes of fame. All they have to do is doctor a finding here and there and hope no one finds out information to the contrary which is seems someone always does. Laugh if you will but there is so much conflicting information out there it's getting ridiculous.
No, there is not a lot of conflicting information. The only people doctoring their findings to line their pockets are those "scientists" being paid by industry to refute global warming. If you believe that virtually every climatologist in every country in the world is part of some major conspiracy to line his/her pockets by saying global warming exists when it does not, you're not only incredibly dumb but naive as well.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 07:10:27 AM
You're wasting your time. See what I mean by 'these people shouldn't be allowed to breed'?
Uh-huh. Maybe you can give me some kind of signal next time you see me beating my head against a brick wall.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 07:15:07 AM
Quote from: me on April 26, 2009, 12:16:36 PM
Now I know the scientists realize this but there is no money to be made if they say that but by screaming global warming or global cooling so they go with the flow of which ever politician is going to line their pockets and give them grants and maybe that 15 minutes of fame. All they have to do is doctor a finding here and there and hope no one finds out information to the contrary which is seems someone always does. Laugh if you will but there is so much conflicting information out there it's getting ridiculous.
No, there is not a lot of conflicting information. The only people doctoring their findings to line their pockets are those "scientists" being paid by industry to refute global warming. If you believe that virtually every climatologist in every country in the world is part of some major conspiracy to line his/her pockets by saying global warming exists when it does not, you're not only incredibly dumb but naive as well.
Hum, didn't Gore fire one of the scientists who disagreed with him on global warming? Wasn't he paying his scientists to come to his conclusions?
Quote from: LOsborne on April 27, 2009, 07:44:23 AM
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 07:10:27 AM
You're wasting your time. See what I mean by 'these people shouldn't be allowed to breed'?
Uh-huh. Maybe you can give me some kind of signal next time you see me beating my head against a brick wall.
How about this one?
(http://keithgrossman.com/typing.gif)
[quote by me]Hum, didn't Gore fire one of the scientists who disagreed with him on global warming? Wasn't he paying his scientists to come to his conclusions?
[/quote]
In 1993. I take it you believe all the research and data since that time are fraudulent?
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 07:53:42 AM
(http://keithgrossman.com/typing.gif)
Perfect. You could just kind of slip it into the conversation, so I won't continue the fruitless attempt at reason. K?
Quote from: LOsborne on April 27, 2009, 08:00:31 AM
In 1993. I take it you believe all the research and data since that time are fraudulent?
Additionally, let's assume you own a hospital that employs 100 doctors. Someone is brought into the emergency room bleeding profusely from his chest. All of the doctors look at him and 99 of them agree that he has a gunshot wound but one doctor says he has a sprained toe. Would you treat the patient based on his conclusion and would you keep that doctor on your staff?
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)
Ex, you say YOU are open minded....and like to gather information....I am curious, will you be unbiased on this or will you simply blast it?...This is a very interesting observation by a well known scientist...who IS not being paid by any BIG industry.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 08:38:26 AM
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)
Ex, you say YOU are open minded....and like to gather information....I am curious, will you be unbiased on this or will you simply blast it?...This is a very interesting observation by a well known scientist...who IS not being paid by any BIG industry.
Really? Tim Ball was previously a scientific advisor to the oil-industry backed organization, Friends Of Science. You need to learn how to mete out your "sources" better but never doing so certainly explains your gullibility.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 08:50:59 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 08:38:26 AM
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)
Ex, you say YOU are open minded....and like to gather information....I am curious, will you be unbiased on this or will you simply blast it?...This is a very interesting observation by a well known scientist...who IS not being paid by any BIG industry.
Really? Tim Ball was previously a scientific advisor to the oil-industry backed organization, Friends Of Science. You need to learn how to mete out your "sources" better but never doing so certainly explains your gullibility.
You only know this because you copied and pasted it from SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball)...a liberal site, ran by an anti-war and environmental activist's Stauber and Rampart...so I see how you mete out your "sources" ...very hypocritical....you are simply as BAD as you claim I am.........you find sources that suit YOUR opinions....AND YOUR gullibility... ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 09:24:00 AM
You only know this because you copied and pasted it from SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball)...a liberal site, ran by an anti-war and environmental activist's Stauber and Rampart...so I see how you mete out your "sources" ...very hypocritical....you are simply as BAD as you claim I am.........you find sources that suit YOUR opinions....AND YOUR gullibility... ;)
Despite where I found the information, did he or did he not serve as a scientific advisor for that organization and was that organization funded by the oil industry or not? If both of those things can be verified (which they can) then you're not gullible at all, you're an outright liar.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 09:24:00 AM
You only know this because you copied and pasted it from SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball)...a liberal site, ran by an anti-war and environmental activist's Stauber and Rampart...so I see how you mete out your "sources" ...very hypocritical....you are simply as BAD as you claim I am.........you find sources that suit YOUR opinions....AND YOUR gullibility... ;)
Despite where I found the information, did he or did he not serve as a scientific advisor for that organization and was that organization funded by the oil industry or not? If both of those things can be verified (which they can) then you're not gullible at all, you're an outright liar.
simply because they are or are not funded by a oil industry.........does not mean their facts and evidence is to be ignored...your sources are funded by liberals with an agenda...can Tmm Balls claims be proved wrong?...he has backed up his sources and has written many articles supporting his claims.....you simply choose to believe you the source's you pick, despite the evidence, because they FIT your opinion.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 08:50:59 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 08:38:26 AM
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)
Ex, you say YOU are open minded....and like to gather information....I am curious, will you be unbiased on this or will you simply blast it?...This is a very interesting observation by a well known scientist...who IS not being paid by any BIG industry.
Really? Tim Ball was previously a scientific advisor to the oil-industry backed organization, Friends Of Science. You need to learn how to mete out your "sources" better but never doing so certainly explains your gullibility.
So, he has no right to his opinion? Isn't Gore backed by most of the enviormental orgs. Don't They have an agenda too? The main thing that is being said here is that They do not allow anyone with a valid rebuttal to speak against Gore. Kind of Chicken little to me. The cards are definitely stacked on Gore's side. Boy that is democratic huh?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 09:57:49 AM
simply because they are or are not funded by a oil industry.........does not mean their facts and evidence is to be ignored...your sources are funded by liberals with an agenda...can Tmm Balls claims be proved wrong?...he has backed up his sources and has written many articles supporting his claims.....you simply choose to believe you the source's you pick, despite the evidence, because they FIT your opinion.
You said 'a well known scientist...who is not being paid by any big industry'; that is not true yet you continue to defend it which makes you a liar.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 27, 2009, 09:59:20 AM
So, he has no right to his opinion? Isn't Gore backed by most of the enviormental orgs. Don't They have an agenda too? The main thing that is being said here is that They do not allow anyone with a valid rebuttal to speak against Gore. Kind of Chicken little to me. The cards are definitely stacked on Gore's side. Boy that is democratic huh?
Gee, isn't one of the commandments 'thou shalt not lie'? And yet here you are defending it...seems to be a trend amongst the self-righteous.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 10:13:03 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 09:57:49 AM
simply because they are or are not funded by a oil industry.........does not mean their facts and evidence is to be ignored...your sources are funded by liberals with an agenda...can Tmm Balls claims be proved wrong?...he has backed up his sources and has written many articles supporting his claims.....you simply choose to believe you the source's you pick, despite the evidence, because they FIT your opinion.
You said 'a well known scientist...who is not being paid by any big industry'; that is not true yet you continue to defend it which makes you a liar.
I don't know if it is true or not.....simpy because a liberal group says it is, does not make me a believer.........and, I will say that even if they have recieved funds, does not make his statements any less valid.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 10:37:58 AM
I don't know if it is true or not.....
It's not and you have all of the information at your disposal to prove that...you're a liar.
Quote...and, I will say that even if they have recieved funds, does not make his statements any less valid.
It absolutely makes his statements less valid.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 10:49:48 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 10:37:58 AM
I don't know if it is true or not.....
It's not and you have all of the information at your disposal to prove that...you're a liar.
Quote...and, I will say that even if they have recieved funds, does not make his statements any less valid.
It absolutely makes his statements less valid.
it is clear to me that you have tunnel vision.....and only WANT to see what supports YOUR opinion.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 11:02:13 AM
it is clear to me that you have tunnel vision.....and only WANT to see what supports YOUR opinion.
It's clear to me that you have no integrity.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 11:02:13 AM
it is clear to me that you have tunnel vision.....and only WANT to see what supports YOUR opinion.
It's clear to me that you have no integrity.
you obviously do not understand integrity..........when you follow the Al Gore "sky is falling" crowd....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 11:07:25 AM
you obviously do not understand integrity..........when you follow the Al Gore "sky is falling" crowd....
I absolutely understand integrity...if I said a source wasn't being paid by X and you proved to me that he was, I'd admit my mistake and immediately take into consideration how my source's viewpoint was manipulated by the people lining his pockets.
You're just a freakin' liar but hey, I expect that from you bible thumping types...just like I expect you to rationalize torture...real freakin' Jesus like. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 11:16:13 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 27, 2009, 11:07:25 AM
you obviously do not understand integrity..........when you follow the Al Gore "sky is falling" crowd....
I absolutely understand integrity...if I said a source wasn't being paid by X and you proved to me that he was, I'd admit my mistake and immediately take into consideration how my source's viewpoint was manipulated by the people lining his pockets.
and YOU are taking sources from liberal manipulated sources..who are having their pockets lined....by those who have an agenda to create a fear in our earth warming....and all being caused by man.
Did I already say that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed?
Quote from: Exterminator on April 27, 2009, 01:09:34 PM
Did I already say that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed?
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/idiot.gif)
Instead of dueling pundits arguing over the causes of global warming, why don't we talk about polar ice melt? Because the polar ice is melting.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0407/1224244144850.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040601634.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/02/06/antarctic-ice-melt-would-shift-earths-axis-further-changing-sea-level/
Those are just the first three articles I found. They are all recent articles too. Not one from 1993.
And this is the data center where most the raw facts in the articles are collected:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Okay, less ice means more water. I believe someone who posts here lives in Ft. Lauderdale. How far above sea-level is his home? My mother in Naples is eight inches above sea level. Maybe instead of scoffing at each other we should build a few sea walls. I don't care whether the cause is man or nature, I don't want my mother to be flooded out of her home.
Eminently practical line of thinking, L.O. :yes: Kudos.
Was there ever really an Ice Age? What planetary phenomenon causes it? The planet warmed enough to 'thaw'. How could this happen without humans causing it?
Quote from: DannyBoy on April 27, 2009, 10:12:20 PM
Was there ever really an Ice Age? What planetary phenomenon causes it? The planet warmed enough to 'thaw'. How could this happen without humans causing it?
It was a miracle I tell you, a miracle. Actually I think it was all the dinosaur flatulence from eating all that vegetation.
Prehistoric beans-- that's the miracle! :biggrin:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/Foden2009012820Gore20ART20090127063.jpg)
Quote from: DannyBoy on April 27, 2009, 10:12:20 PM
Was there ever really an Ice Age? What planetary phenomenon causes it? The planet warmed enough to 'thaw'. How could this happen without humans causing it?
If you'd bother to do a little research, the answers to your questions are pretty easy to find.
Yep, now that we're having cold winters they're saying it's caused by global warming just like they were saying the hot summers were caused by global cooling...... :biggrin:
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
Yep, now that we're having cold winters they're saying it's caused by global warming just like they were saying the hot summers were caused by global cooling...... :biggrin:
It must really be peaceful to be so dumb.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 10:10:47 AM
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
Yep, now that we're having cold winters they're saying it's caused by global warming just like they were saying the hot summers were caused by global cooling...... :biggrin:
It must really be peaceful to be so dumb.
Why don't you tell us how peaceful it is Ex seems like you should know.
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 10:12:10 AM
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 10:10:47 AM
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
Yep, now that we're having cold winters they're saying it's caused by global warming just like they were saying the hot summers were caused by global cooling...... :biggrin:
It must really be peaceful to be so dumb.
Why don't you tell us how peaceful it is Ex seems like you should know.
Such wit! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 10:48:11 AM
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 10:12:10 AM
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 10:10:47 AM
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
Yep, now that we're having cold winters they're saying it's caused by global warming just like they were saying the hot summers were caused by global cooling...... :biggrin:
It must really be peaceful to be so dumb.
Why don't you tell us how peaceful it is Ex seems like you should know.
Such wit! :rolleyes:
You have such a wonderful vocabulary Ex. I'm sooooo impressed...
Again, why do you think I care what some old, worn-out Andertucky housewife thinks of me?
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 11:05:09 AM
Again, why do you think I care what some old, worn-out Andertucky housewife thinks of me?
Yer so cute when yer upset..... :toothless:
LMAO! Don't flatter yourself.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 11:17:27 AM
LMAO! Don't flatter yourself.
Wasn't tryin' to.... :razz:
The fact that someone would base evidence of the entire phenomena of global warming on what's happening in their back yards (relatively speaking) shows that they know nothing about the subject.
Oh and btw, who is "they"?
I'm still trying to figure out what a cimate scientist studies? :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 28, 2009, 03:38:30 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what a cimate scientist studies? :biggrin:
Cimates, of course. duh!
How silly of me!
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 28, 2009, 03:24:15 PM
Oh and btw, who is "they"?
The scientists I guess. Since that comment came from out in left field and both sides have referred to "they" in reference to findings about global warming. I don't think Al Bore has gotten large enough to be referred to in the plural form yet.
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 04:53:35 PM
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 28, 2009, 03:24:15 PM
Oh and btw, who is "they"?
The scientists I guess. Since that comment came from out in left field and both sides have referred to "they" in reference to findings about global warming.
I reread the thread, just to test the truth of
me's statement. Mcgonser used "they" in the second post of the thread, but it had a clear antecedent -- the "Democrats" in the title of the thread.
In the fifth post
me used several "they"s with no antecedent I could find. I really don't think "cows" was the antecedent each time. Another floating "they" appears in post 18. In post 24 "they" appears to refer to the things which have been changed according to
me. I think. It might be the scientists.
Post 40, Mcgonser uses "they" but it is unclear whether the antecedent is "enviormental orgs"(sic) or the aforementioned "Democrats." Possibly both, since "they" is used twice.
Post 43:
me's "they" has no antecedent at all, and is simply indecipherable.
In post 52 I used "they" myself, but with the clear antecedent of "articles."
That brings us to this page, with Sandy's clever observation on the indefinite pronoun. And
me's assertion that both sides have used it. Not so. Mcgonser and I used it, with clear antecedents (not totally clear once for Mcgonser, but at least there was a possible antecedent.)
Four times
me used the indefinite pronoun "they" in phrases and sentences where there is no clue who "they" are.
This long, boring dissertation is to give warning: don't make statements that can be easily verified, unless you are sure you know what you are talking about. People do check.
Quote from: LOsborne on April 28, 2009, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 04:53:35 PM
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 28, 2009, 03:24:15 PM
Oh and btw, who is "they"?
The scientists I guess. Since that comment came from out in left field and both sides have referred to "they" in reference to findings about global warming.
I reread the thread, just to test the truth of me's statement. Mcgonser used "they" in the second post of the thread, but it had a clear antecedent -- the "Democrats" in the title of the thread.
QuoteIn the fifth post me used several "they"s with no antecedent I could find. I really don't think "cows" was the antecedent each time. Another floating "they" appears in post 18. In post 24 "they" appears to refer to the things which have been changed according to me. I think. It might be the scientists.
That would be post #4 not 5:http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13618.msg311651#msg311651 "they" is meaning scientists and the government. If you had been aware of what was going on then you would have understood who was meant by "they".
Post #17 http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13618.15
Since I was talking about scientists in the paragraph wouldn't if follow that that's what my "they" was referring to?
Post #23 http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13618.msg311920#msg311920
If you can't figure out who and what is meant by "they" there then there is no hope for you at all.
QuotePost 40, Mcgonser uses "they" but it is unclear whether the antecedent is "enviormental orgs"(sic) or the aforementioned "Democrats." Possibly both, since "they" is used twice.
That would be post #39 http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13618.msg311974#msg311974
Gee wonder who she meant by "they" QuoteIsn't Gore backed by most of the enviormental orgs. Don't They have an agenda too?
[/b]
QuotePost 43: me's "they" has no antecedent at all, and is simply indecipherable.
That would be post #42 http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13618.msg311988#msg311988
Hum, let me see...He mentioned liberal groups and then used the term they...hum, wonder who he was referring to..... :rolleyes:
In post 52 I used "they" myself, but with the clear antecedent of "articles."
Post #51 http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13618.msg312039#msg312039
That brings us to this page, with Sandy's clever observation on the indefinite pronoun. And me's assertion that both sides have used it. Not so. Mcgonser and I used it, with clear antecedents (not totally clear once for Mcgonser, but at least there was a possible antecedent.)
Four times me used the indefinite pronoun "they" in phrases and sentences where there is no clue who "they" are.
This long, boring dissertation is to give warning: don't make statements that can be easily verified, unless you are sure you know what you are talking about. People do check.
^^ Back attcha^^
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 09:15:55 PM
That would be post #4 not 5:
Nope, It's 5. 4 was Sandy's smiley eyeroll. You claim "scientists and the government," (that's too many antecedents, by the way) but you never mention either one in the post. The only living creature you mention is "cows."
QuotePost #17
It's 18 on my monitor
QuoteSince I was talking about scientists in the paragraph wouldn't if follow that that's what my "they" was referring to?
No, since you say "...there is no money to be made if they say that..." followed by "All they have to do is doctor a finding here and there..." Scientists do not make money from the results of a study. They are paid to do the study, no matter what the result is. Politicians make money (from lobbyists) by advancing a position. Your "they" is unclear. Both times.
QuoteIf you can't figure out who and what is meant by "they" there then there is no hope for you at all.
No hope for me because I can't read your mind? You said this: "...I have no clue, but there have been things I know have happened and how they happened that I have looked for online and either found them changed or not there at all..." Sugar, I can't even find the subject or verb in that sentence, let alone a noun antecedent for "they."
You write:
QuoteGee wonder who she meant by "they"
Isn't Gore backed by most of the enviormental orgs. Don't They have an agenda too?
You seem to be implying that Gore is the antecedent of "they" in Mcgonser's post. But Gore is a single individual. Hence my assumption that she meant either the "enviormental orgs." or Democrats (more than one.)
QuoteThat would be post #42
Hum, let me see...He mentioned liberal groups and then used the term they...hum, wonder who he was referring to..... :rolleyes:
That would be the natural assumption, but this phrase "and, I will say that even if they have recieved funds, does not make his statements any less valid" clearly was written by Henry in defense of the scientist Tim Ball, who was funded by the oil industry -- NOT a liberal group. So rolling your eyes only underscores the fact that you did not comprehend the post at all.
I don't know why your screen shows the posts numbered one less than my screen does, but at least we are able to zero in on the same posts in question.
Anyway, the point I am making is that you, yourself,
me, are the one tossing out all the undefined "they"s. In this thread, both sides have
not "referred to 'they' in reference to findings about global warming."
It was a valiant effort, sugar, but you need to spend a few more weeks with the AP stylebook if you intend to continue using indefinite pronouns.
Not to brag or belittle myself.....but I was the guy that got a 790 in math and 450 in english on the SAT's......I wish I had this thread to help me study. ;D
perhaps that is obvious to all of them. :biggrin:
I guess if you don't have a counterpoint to make the next best thing is to go off in another direction and start finding fault with the person who disagrees with or has a different opinion from yours....it's called diversion which there seems to be a lot of going on lately.
Quote from: me on April 28, 2009, 11:43:15 PM
I guess if you don't have a counterpoint to make the next best thing is to go off in another direction and start finding fault with the person who disagrees with or has a different opinion from yours....it's called diversion which there seems to be a lot of going on lately.
I was countering your claim that "both sides have referred to 'they' in reference to findings about global warming." Try to keep up.
Quote from: DannyBoy on April 28, 2009, 10:43:17 PM
... I was the guy that got a 790 in math and 450 in english on the SAT's.....
See? I
knew you were literate!