Date: 19 Apr 2007 01:31:31 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospaml.com> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:51:51 GMT, still me <wheeledBobnospamo.com> wrote: > On 18 Apr 2007 11:46:15 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospaml.com> wrote: > >>> On the other hand, you could go read some >>> research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see >>> what it seems to be saying. >> >>Got pointers? > > Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. Perhaps you missed the "factual and not biased, alarmist handwaving" part of my request. >>The point you're trying to make, and the point he's trying to make, are >>the same. He seems to have said it better. It's not about "rising >>above the top of the glass" (you can do that with floatation), it's >>about the ice that's sitting on something solid rather than floating. I >>also question your volumetrics but that's another problem. > No, they're not. His (and your agreement) were some kind of childish > suggestion that we're only dealing with "floating ice cubes". Don't presume to speak for me. You can't even make your own points clearly. > Oh, no, wait, call scientists around the world! John on the usenet > just figured out that melting ice caps can't raise ocean levels based > on a simple experiment in a glass! They'll all be mighty embarrassed > they didn't figure this out for themselves. Your reading comprehension is as poor as your social skills. >>So...I'm not him, he's not me, but I'm still interested in unbiased >>research on this topic that I can read. And I'm still not getting any >>pointers. So I'm still treating the same as the "coming ice age" hype >>of the 1970s. > What happened in the 70's is irrelevant. And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got any data to support one or the other? > Either go do some reading or just continue to act like an ideologue - > your choice. See what I mean about getting attacked for asking for information?
