DIYbanter - Good Read

DIYbanter (https://www.diybanter.com/)

- Electronic Schematics (https://www.diybanter.com/electronic-schematics/)

- - Good Read (https://www.diybanter.com/electronic-schematics/261255-good-read.html)

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:16:58 -0700, UltimatePatriot
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:42:43 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Good Read...

Bad ReadTard ...Jim Thompson

Do you ever make any ON-topic posts, ReadTard-ThompsonTard?

Yep, I even provide technical solutions, _when_ technical questions
are posted.

You, however, are short-lived. As soon as I verify that the TURD-TARD
category catches no "good guys", you'll disappear permanently from my
view ;-)

Bye, now!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable

"flipper"

I think it would come as a surprise to most people that, so called,
'global warming' (man induced) doesn't actually qualify as
a:"scientific theory" because people tend to mistakenly believe
anything, speculation included, that contains a bunch of 'numbers',
'data', and 'research' is automatically 'science'.

** AGW is a popular hypotheses about world climate - but certainly not a
coherent or established "theory " of this planet's future climate.

Try it. Next time you run across a 'global warming' advocate ask them
what testable criteria would disprove it. I'll wager the answer you'll
get is 'none' because, they'll argue, "it's a fact" (or claim a
"scientific consensus").

** Since AGW followers all say the planets' atmosphere is rapidly warming
p - an observed failure to do so in the next decade or so would be a major
blow for the hypothesis.

I wager the hard core would then claim that the predicted disaster it has
been "delayed" through their mighty efforts to alert everyone.

They can't lose.

...... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"flipper"

I think it would come as a surprise to most people that, so called,
'global warming' (man induced) doesn't actually qualify as
a:"scientific theory" because people tend to mistakenly believe
anything, speculation included, that contains a bunch of 'numbers',
'data', and 'research' is automatically 'science'.

** AGW is a popular hypotheses about world climate - but certainly not a
coherent or established "theory " of this planet's future climate.

Especially agree on this point. The general public don't understand what a
theory is.

Try it. Next time you run across a 'global warming' advocate ask them
what testable criteria would disprove it. I'll wager the answer you'll
get is 'none' because, they'll argue, "it's a fact" (or claim a
"scientific consensus").

** Since AGW followers all say the planets' atmosphere is rapidly warming
p - an observed failure to do so in the next decade or so would be a major
blow for the hypothesis.

I wager the hard core would then claim that the predicted disaster it has
been "delayed" through their mighty efforts to alert everyone.

They can't lose.

Totally agree.

Graham