Why Rightards Have So Much Difficulty Understanding Scientific Consensus
Bret Cahill
I've been trying to communicate this critically important scientific
truth for decades and finally a rightard spits it right out for me:
> > Wage slaves spend every day scared to death of losing their jobs for
> > not pandering to their employer boss enough so the concept of "tenure"
> > isn't going to register in these folk.
> Indeed it does since we pay their wages.
I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
> Also "tenure" is not a god given
> right and could be taken away at anytime by any government
Why didn't the Israeli gummint get rid of tenured prof Sand who
claimed Israel had no right to exist? (Sand is the gift that keeps on
giving!)
> as evidenced by
> your Messiah taking away people's property
What property?
> and whatever else he wants to get
> big governments hands on. Also lookup "peer pressure".
With opposition like that maybe Copenhagen will accomplish something.
> You might worship "scientist's" but the rest of us aren't just a bunch of
> lemming blindly following the research money like good ol' Al Gore looking
> for his affirmative action noble peace prize.
Al Gore is just a parasite on the "environmental movement" and doesn't
have anything to do with any science.
Reputable AGW scientists keep distancing themselves from the fat
senator's son who has never done a day's work in his entire life.
Bret Cahill
Werner
...
>
> I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
> political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
> peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
> to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
> scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
>
There was the Club Of Rome prediction of the early '70s that by this
time we would all be breathing sulfuric acid. Then we don't want to
forget the Global Cooling scare.
There was the Love Canal catastrophe which led to the creations of
still another federal agency.
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Environment.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/CleanEnvironmentMoney.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/PorkNotFish.shtml
Some day enough people will understand that governing is largely about
money - getting it from some and giving it to others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Witziges R�tsel
news:714c5b3e-6f96-4947...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 15, 1:16 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
>> political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
>> peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
>> to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
>> scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
>>
>that by this time we would all be breathing sulfuric acid.
>Then we don't want to
>forget the Global Cooling scare.
>There was the Love Canal catastrophe which led to the
>creations of still another federal agency.
>
been misinterpreted in the past?
M Purcell
> On Dec 15, 1:16 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
> > political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
> > peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
> > to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
> > scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
>
> ...
>
> There was the Club Of Rome prediction of the early '70s that by this
> time we would all be breathing sulfuric acid.
And emission were reduced.
Then we don't want to
> forget the Global Cooling scare.
Do you have some kind of memory problem?
> There was the Love Canal catastrophe which led to the creations of
> still another federal agency.
Were you born in Niagara Falls?
> Some day enough people will understand that governing is largely about
> money - getting it from some and giving it to others.
Did you miss the memo about taxes?
Beam Me Up Scotty
NOW THAT IS RICH.... You'll throw Al Gore under the bus to keep Global
Warming alive.
Why have you NOT said that Al Gores Movie is also *NOT SCIENCE*
The rest of us knew it from day one, where were you?
When will you ask that Al Gore's movie is removed from the schools....
he's just a "Parasite"
Bret Cahill
Al Gore should have been thrown under a bus before the Dems gave him
$100 million to campaign against Bill Clinton's 8 years of peace and
prosperity.
AGW is just another example of Gore undermining anything he latches
onto.
Notice Gore never has any solutions?
> Why have you NOT said that Al Gores Movie is also *NOT SCIENCE*
I haven't seen the ghost written movie. If it has any useful science
in it it was done by Hollywood ghost writers, not Gore.
> The rest of us knew it from day one, where were you?
>
> When will you ask that Al Gore's movie is removed from the schools....
Unlike Repugs, I'm not a censor.
> he's just a "Parasite"
And intelligent students everywhere will figure it out from the movie.
That's why I'm not a censor.
Bret Cahill
Steven L.
news:hg8l1i$4hk$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
No. It's a good idea to remember the concept of selection bias.
Doomsayers always get headlines and publicity. Those who think that
things aren't so bad, or that problems can be remediated, don't get that
kind of publicity.
So we're constantly bombarded with all kinds of gloomy "predictions."
That leads to a "crying wolf" situation: After nuclear winter didn't
happen and the Club of Rome predictions didn't happen and Ehrlich's
predictions of mass starvation from overpopulation didn't happen, the
public starts to tune this stuff out.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> "Witziges Rätsel" <z...@roer.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:hg8l1i$4hk$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> "Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:714c5b3e-6f96-4947...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 15, 1:16 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
>> >> political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
>> >> peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
>> >> to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
>> >> scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
>> >>
>> >There was the Club Of Rome prediction of the early '70s
>> >that by this time we would all be breathing sulfuric acid.
>> >Then we don't want to
>> >forget the Global Cooling scare.
>> >There was the Love Canal catastrophe which led to the
>> >creations of still another federal agency.
>> >
>> So, you believe it's a good idea to ignore evidence, because it's
>> been misinterpreted in the past?
>
> No. It's a good idea to remember the concept of selection bias.
>
> Doomsayers always get headlines and publicity. Those who think that
> things aren't so bad, or that problems can be remediated, don't get that
> kind of publicity.
>
> So we're constantly bombarded with all kinds of gloomy "predictions."
> That leads to a "crying wolf" situation:
Those bombarding us with Gloom and doom will go out of business and take
down the economy with them and there will be death in the streets and
mayhem and apocalypse world wide....
Beam Me Up Scotty
NOW THAT IS RICH.... You'll throw Al Gore under the bus to keep Global
Warming alive.
Why have you NOT said that Al Gores Movie is also *NOT SCIENCE*
The rest of us knew it from day one, where were you?
When will you ask that Al Gore's movie is removed from the schools....
Beam Me Up Scotty
NOW THAT IS RICH.... You'll throw Al Gore under the bus to keep Global
Warming alive.
Why have you NOT said that Al Gores Movie is also *NOT SCIENCE*
The rest of us knew it from day one, where were you?
When will you ask that Al Gore's movie is removed from the schools....
he's just a "Parasite"
--
Bret Cahill
> > What property?
> "Al Gore is just a parasite on the "environmental movement" and doesn't
> have anything to do with any science."
> NOW THAT IS RICH.... You'll throw Al Gore under the bus to keep Global
> Warming alive.
Al Gore should have been thrown under a bus before the Dems gave him
$100 million to campaign against Bill Clinton's 8 years of peace and
prosperity.
AGW is just another example of Gore undermining anything he latches
onto.
Notice Gore never has any solutions?
> Why have you NOT said that Al Gores Movie is also *NOT SCIENCE*
I haven't seen the ghost written movie. If it has any useful science
in it it was done by Hollywood ghost writers, not Gore.
> The rest of us knew it from day one, where were you?
> When will you ask that Al Gore's movie is removed from the schools....
Unlike Repugs, I'm not a censor.
> he's just a "Parasite"
And intelligent students everywhere will figure it out from the
Bret Cahill
> Those bombarding us with Gloom and doom will go out of business and take
> down the economy with them and there will be death in the streets and
> mayhem and apocalypse world wide...
Pretty good.
Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
I seem to remember Cap and trade taxation on carbon and carbon credit
scams that Gore has put forth.
Jerry Okamura
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:051e7afc-ccf7-4991...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Bret Cahill
And the 20th Century.
Bret Cahill
zzbu...@netscape.net
>
> I've been trying to communicate this critically important scientific
> truth for decades and finally a rightard spits it right out for me:
>
> > > Wage slaves spend every day scared to death of losing their jobs for
> > > not pandering to their employer boss enough so the concept of "tenure"
> > > isn't going to register in these folk.
> > Indeed it does since we pay their wages.
>
> I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
> political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
> peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
> to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
> scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
The idiot liberal media will swallow anything internet spews.
But the educable people still work on Desktop Publishing,
XML, Post Wall Street Journey Holographics, Digital Books,
mp3, mpeg, HDTV, Atomic Clock Watches, Post Disney Cell Phones,
Rapid Prototyping, UAVs, and Post GM-nomics anyway.
Sid9
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1e778c25-eef8-4014...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
.
"The truth has a liberal bent", Colbert
mani deli
>�That's the reason rightards don't understand the
Robot Poet
> "Witziges Rätsel" <z...@roer.invalid.com> wrote in message
> > So, you believe it's a good idea to ignore evidence, because it's
> > been misinterpreted in the past?
>
> No. It's a good idea to remember the concept of selection bias.
>
> Doomsayers always get headlines and publicity. Those who think that
> things aren't so bad, or that problems can be remediated, don't get that
> kind of publicity.
>
> So we're constantly bombarded with all kinds of gloomy "predictions."
> That leads to a "crying wolf" situation: After nuclear winter didn't
> happen...
Is this what passes for logic in your world?
Nuclear winter is hypothesized to follow a large scale discharge of
nuclear weapons. The hypothesis hasn't been tested, thank G*d,
because the conditions that would falsify haven't occured.
--
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that
you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
Bret Cahill
> > > So, you believe it's a good idea to ignore evidence, because it's
> > > been misinterpreted in the past?
>
> > No. It's a good idea to remember the concept of selection bias.
>
> > Doomsayers always get headlines and publicity. Those who think that
> > things aren't so bad, or that problems can be remediated, don't get that
> > kind of publicity.
>
> > So we're constantly bombarded with all kinds of gloomy "predictions."
> > That leads to a "crying wolf" situation: After nuclear winter didn't
> > happen...
>
> Is this what passes for logic in your world?
See the OP. The wage slave can only obey The Boss so he cannot obey
Reason.
This is why so few rightards are scientists and so few scientists are
Repugliars.
> Nuclear winter is hypothesized to follow a large scale discharge of
> nuclear weapons.
Rightards got their behinds whupped so bad politically they _think_
they were nuked.
> The hypothesis hasn't been tested, thank G*d,
> because the conditions that would falsify haven't occured.
>
> --
> "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that
> you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
For decades the corp. media ran a campaign against any political
participation by "Joe Sixpack."
Bret Cahill
Jim Austin
> This is also why so few scientists are Repugliars.
>
> I've been trying to communicate this critically important scientific
> truth for decades and finally a rightard spits it right out for me:
>
> > > Wage slaves spend every day scared to death of losing their jobs for
> > > not pandering to their employer boss enough so the concept of "tenure"
> > > isn't going to register in these folk.
> > Indeed it does since we pay their wages.
>
> I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
> political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
> peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
> to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
> scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
The value of peer review depends on whether those in the peer are
methodology oriented or conclusion oriented.
If the former, then peer review can weed out conclusions that are not
validated by the methodology.
If the latter, then peer review becomes a mechanism to enforce
intellectual conformity. Indications point to the latter. Indeed,
scientists supporting global warming show every sign of having
succumbed to the Lysenko syndrome. Lysenko was Stalin's pet scientist
who declared that acquired characteristics can be inherited by future
generations. The syndrome is that scientific conclusions can be
evaluated by their conformance to a political ideology, by whether the
conclusions are politically correct.
The recent Climategate scandal indicates the goal of certain
scientists, not to protect the integrity of scientific research, but
to protect predetermined conclusions from criticism, to suppress
evidence inconsistent with predetermined conclusions.
> > Also "tenure" is not a god given
> > right and could be taken away at anytime by any government
>
> Why didn't the Israeli gummint get rid of tenured prof Sand who
> claimed Israel had no right to exist? (Sand is the gift that keeps on
> giving!)
>
> > as evidenced by
> > your Messiah taking away people's property
>
> What property?
Money. Land. Factories.
> > and whatever else he wants to get
> > big governments hands on. Also lookup "peer pressure".
>
> With opposition like that maybe Copenhagen will accomplish something.
Like deindustrialization.
> > You might worship "scientist's" but the rest of us aren't just a bunch of
> > lemming blindly following the research money like good ol' Al Gore looking
> > for his affirmative action noble peace prize.
>
> Al Gore is just a parasite on the "environmental movement" and doesn't
> have anything to do with any science.
>
> Reputable AGW scientists keep distancing themselves from the fat
> senator's son who has never done a day's work in his entire life.
Good news indeed.
Bret Cahill
>
> > I've been trying to communicate this critically important scientific
> > truth for decades and finally a rightard spits it right out for me:
>
> > > > Wage slaves spend every day scared to death of losing their jobs for
> > > > not pandering to their employer boss enough so the concept of "tenure"
> > > > isn't going to register in these folk.
> > > Indeed it does since we pay their wages.
>
> > I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
> > political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
> > peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
> > to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
> > scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
>
> The value of peer review depends on whether those in the peer are
> methodology oriented or conclusion oriented.
>
> If the former, then peer review can weed out conclusions that are not
> validated by the methodology.
You must be talking about scholarly operations like Fox News and Rush
Limbaugh.
> If the latter, then peer review becomes a mechanism to enforce
> intellectual conformity.
You must be talking about the global conspiracy of scientists. Here's
what they are saying:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/462545a; Published
online 2 December 2009 [by subscription]
Editorial
Climatologists under pressure
Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do
highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported
in the face of public scrutiny.
The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the
climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall. To these
denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain
controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial
‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have
systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their
doctrine that humans are warming the globe.
This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the
fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably
use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the
country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines
the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human
activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by
multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are
completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the
e-
mails…
If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet
again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change
researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for
information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.
Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for
researchers facing such a burden….
The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will
investigate some of the researchers’ own papers….It is Nature’s
policy
to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for
concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies….
In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are
human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad
them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that
undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such
circumstances
that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally,
and make their data and methods available to others, lest they
provide
their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA
e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge
as
the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists
use
every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and
science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
What this guy can't figger out is that it is people like
those at the CRU who are undermining the credibility
of climate science. Even Monbiot (a moonbat of a
feather with you) has called for Jones' resignation.
As if only one guy should be the scapegoat.
leona...@gmail.com
•• There are a lot of things, Bretsy Cahill, that you
should know but do not. The first is that yo do
not have a clue about how to write a newsgroup
message.
The second is you have no manners. You are a
stupid and vulgar child. MAYBE you will grow
up by age 50 but I wouldn't bet a dime on that.
The third is your know-it-all attitude when in
fact your education. In high school and in the
Army we were taught what to do and how to do it
even as a junior officer. In college we were taught
how to learn. We were taught how to manage our
time and to make good use of it. In grad school
were were taught more about time management
and data management and how to apply the
knowlege we had previously acquired.
• In any event from the record of the posts I have seen
you have absorbed none of that. Further, you have
not any grasp of how to separate from fiction. The
definition of that is 'gullible'. In other words if
another fascist fool like yourself asked you for $5
you would give it to him.
> This is also why so few scientists are Repugliars.
• Are you really trying to bait someone? If not then why
are you using inflamatory language? It certainly is not
good usenet protocol.
> I've been trying to communicate this critically important scientific
> truth for decades and finally a rightard spits it right out for me:
>
> > > Wage slaves spend every day scared to death of losing their jobs for
> > > not pandering to their employer boss enough so the concept of "tenure"
> > > isn't going to register in these folk.
> > Indeed it does since we pay their wages.
• Again you have used bad language and failed to
provide attributions for the 2 cites
> I rest my case. That's the reason rightards don't understand the
> political independence of scientists, why rightards don't understand
> peer review, why rightards cannot comprehend why scientists are free
> to speak the truth or why the "liberal" media believe the AGW
> scientists and not boss frightened wage slaves.
• You have no case, nor have you provided one fact in
support of your claim. Your language is vulgar and
much of it will not pass the smell test
• You should forthwith enroll for a course in 'Ethics'
and another in English composition and grammar.
Bret Cahill
>
> •• There are a lot of things, Bretsy Cahill, that you
> should know but do not.
One of them is what I wrote.
You deleted it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/462545a; Published
online 2 December 2009 [by subscription]
Editorial
Climatologists under pressure
leona...@gmail.com
> > On Dec 15, 1:16 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > •• There are a lot of things, Bretsy Cahill, that you
> > should know but do not.
>
> One of them is what I wrote.
>
> You deleted it.
• Certainly I deleted whatever was not germane to the
discussion which the proper way to respond in usenet.
Of course you deleted the stuff that shows everyone
just how childishly silly and stupid you are and you
confirmed that because you deleted the constructive
stuff hoping nobody will read it.
• In the event that someone has forgotten it:—
leona...@gmail.com
View profile
On Dec 15, 1:16 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
•• There are a lot of things, Bretsy Cahill, that you
More options Dec 23, 12:48 am
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy, alt.politics, sci.energy, sci.environment,
alt.politics.economics
From: "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:48:16 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Dec 23 2009 12:48 am
Subject: Re: Why Rightards Have So Much Difficulty Understanding
Scientific Consensus
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Dec 15, 1:16 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
•• There are a lot of things, Bretsy Cahill, that you
tg
Just noticed this one. It really *is* too easy, isn't it?
-tg
Bret Cahill
>
> > > Those bombarding us with Gloom and doom will go out of business and take
> > > down the economy with them and there will be death in the streets and
> > > mayhem and apocalypse world wide...
>
> > Pretty good.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Just noticed this one. It really *is* too easy, isn't it?
It's hard to tell if it is intentional or not. They project so much
any keystone cop would arrest them just for returning to the scene of
the crime.
Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
Making fun of you Leftists is just too easy.
The irony, double entendre and shear humor of it made it worth the effort.
I know what you're going to say before you say it, and I know.... well
I know more about you than you do.
It lost a bit with the cropping of the post. But then you Leftists
aren't bright enough to catch all the underlying meanings. What is
really funny is that I can write stuff with so much stuffed between the
lines it barely fits and you still don't catch it.
Finding new ways to call you stupid in, ways you are too stupid to see,
is the only real cheap - easy fun left in life.
tg
And then there's this example of left-wing greenolas causing disaster
with their onerous regulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/energy-environment/24refining.html?_r=1&hp
Sometimes I laugh so hard it hurts.
-tg
T. Keating
wrote:
That is a good sign..
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html
US citizens are using less Crude Oil.. and reducing the CO2 footprint.
Right now, we're importing 1.5 MBBD less than the previous year..
I.E. No hurricane to impacted the gulf oil patch in 2009.
On average US crude imports are down by ~0.8 MBBD from 2008, and ~2.5
MBBD from 2004/2005 levels..
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRIMUS2&f=W
There are also several misleading statements in that article..
Today's total capacity is nowhere near 18 MBBD... unless one counts
NG feed stocks.. (a deception)..
Quoting from an old usenet post of mine.. (Because the DOE
removed/renamed the original report. )
Message-ID: <1128700883.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Date: 7 Oct 2005 09:01:23 -0700
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
> > "The United States experienced a steep decline in refining capacity
> > between 1981 and the mid-1990s. Between 1981 and 1989, the number of
> > U.S. refineries fell from 324 to 204, representing a loss of 3 million
> > bbl/d in operable capacity (from 18.6 million bbl/d to 15.7 million
> > bbl/d), while refining capacity utilization increased from 69% to 87%.
> > Much of the decline in U.S. refining capacity resulted from the 1981
> > deregulation (elimination of price controls and allocations), which
> > effectively removed the major prop from underneath many marginally
> > profitable, often smaller, refineries."
and the number of refineries...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/refineries.htm
Updated July 2009.. Only 143, producing 2,000 BBD or more..
Identifiable shut in capacity..
#37 DE 182,000 BBD (claimed capacity 210,000 BBD)
#51 NJ 145,000 BBD
#118 NM 20,900 BBD
Hopefully, we will rid ourselves of even more refineries as US demand
for fossil fuels continues it's decline.
hal
wrote:
>On Dec 23, 11:51=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> > > A rightard parodies his own hypocrisy:
>>
>> > > > Those bombarding us with Gloom and doom will go out of business and=
> take
>> > > > down the economy with them and there will be death in the streets a=
>nd
>> > > > mayhem and apocalypse world wide...
>>
>> > > Pretty good.
>>
>> > > Bret Cahill
>>
>> > Just noticed this one. It really *is* too easy, isn't it?
>>
>> It's hard to tell if it is intentional or not. =A0They project so much
>> any keystone cop would arrest them just for returning to the scene of
>> the crime.
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>
>And then there's this example of left-wing greenolas causing disaster
>with their onerous regulations.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/energy-environment/24refining.ht=
>ml?_r=3D1&hp
>
>Sometimes I laugh so hard it hurts.
That's because you're retarded. Only the mentally ill sit and laugh
at things that aren't funny.
>
>-tg
Fred Weiss
> And then there's this example of left-wing greenolas causing disaster
> with their onerous regulations.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/energy-environment/24refin...
>
> Sometimes I laugh so hard it hurts.
What Tiggy is laughing at here is the effects of the recession and
millions unemployed, sharply reducing demand for oil. Brat however I
assume isn't laughing since it undercuts his forecast of $10/gallon
gasoline. But leftists never try particularly hard to keep their
conflicting stories straight - not if it gets in the way of a good
laugh.
Now what I thought Tiggy was linking to is this little gem of left-
wing greenolas cutting off their own noses to spite their faces:
Or, in other words, we love solar power....but not if it gets in the
way of the view or threatens the habitat of the fringe-toed lizard.
This, too, btw will lead to the loss of 1,000's of potential jobs.
Tiggy no doubt will find that funny also. After all what would those
workers spend their money on but TVs, cheap clothes from China, and
processed fish. Let 'em starve.
Fred Weiss
Michael Coburn
Fred Weiss sees the entire world as workers sucking the butts of owners.
That is the Fred Weiss utopia. And Feinstein sees it as workers sucking
the butts of Senators and environmentalists. Neither of them have any
clue as to how the the people can be free of political masters through a
true republican form of government.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Your language is vulgar and
> much of it will not pass the smell test
>
> • You should forthwith enroll for a course in 'Ethics'
> and another in English composition and grammar.
Cahill is a fucking moronic commie idiot, however his line is drawn
clearly in the sand, he supports without appology the idea that others
be forced to conform to his fucked up ideology via the use of the
state's guns, but ewe are just as fucking evil by acting like a
fucking fascist, no different in any way to Cahill, when ewe try and
force your moral and ethical values onto him.
The use of vulgar language is nothing compared to the guns the state
uses in forcing comformity to subjective moral standards such as
yours. Ewe fucking fascists are directly responsible for hate crimes
laws and many other victimless crime laws.
The most peaceful way to resolve any conflict between man is by the
use of words and sometimes vulgarity can be the easiest and simpliest
and the most effective and a most peaceful way to get some especially
fascist idiots to check their faulty premises.
MG
leona...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:19:15 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 23, 11:51 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >> > > A rightard parodies his own hypocrisy:
>
> >> > > > Those bombarding us with Gloom and doom will go out of business and take
> >> > > > down the economy with them and there will be death in the streets and
> >> > > > mayhem and apocalypse world wide...
>
> >> > > Pretty good.
>
> >> > > Bret Cahill
>
> >> > Just noticed this one. It really *is* too easy, isn't it?
>
> >> It's hard to tell if it is intentional or not. They project so much
> >> any keystone cop would arrest them just for returning to the scene of
> >> the crime.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> >And then there's this example of left-wing greenolas causing disaster
> >with their onerous regulations.
>
>
> >Sometimes I laugh so hard it hurts.
>
>
> US citizens are using less Crude Oil.. and reducing the CO2 footprint.
> Right now, we're importing 1.5 MBBD less than the previous year..
>
> I.E. No hurricane to impacted the gulf oil patch in 2009.
>
> On average US crude imports are down by ~0.8 MBBD from 2008, and ~2.5
> MBBD from 2004/2005 levels..
>
# Then the costs of plastics will soar. Our offshore fuel likely be
from Brazil in five years, See the the details in sci.environment.
leona...@gmail.com
Bret Cahill
> > use of words and sometimes vulgarity can be the easiest and simpliest
> > and the most effective and a most peaceful way to get some especially
> > fascist idiots to check their faulty premises.
>
> •• HORSE SHIT!!
He doesn't even understand why he doesn't fall off the bottom of the
earth.
Bret Cahill
Jim Austin
They do indicate that certain climate researchers are conclusions
oriented rather than methodology oriented, that researchers regard
data as something to be manipulated to support a predesignated
conclusion and that those who challenge such preconceived conclusions
are to be destroyed.
> The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit
> at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the
> climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall. To these
> denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain
> controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial
> ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have
> systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their
> doctrine that humans are warming the globe.
They do give evidence of the Lysenko Syndrome affecting such
scientists.
> This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the
> fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably
> use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the
> country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines
> the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human
> activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by
> multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are
> completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the
> e-mails…
The case is supported by computer simulation where the program itself
contains questionable assumptions about the climate like unchanging
values to other factors affecting climate. Many of the U.S. agencies
holding long-term climate data fight tooth and nail against Freedom of
information Act attempts to make them available to the public.
> If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet
> again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change
> researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for
> information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.
> Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for
> researchers facing such a burden….
Public scrutiny is something that certain researchers want to avoid.
> The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will
> investigate some of the researchers’ own papers….It is Nature’s
> policy
> to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for
> concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies….
Nature does not consider corruption of data as a substantive reason
for concern.
> In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are
> human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad
> them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that
> undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such
> circumstances
> that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally,
> and make their data and methods available to others, lest they
> provide
> their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA
> e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge
> as
> the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists
> use
> every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and
> science.
It doesn't undermine scientists and science. It simply challenges the
scientific status of certain climate researchers.
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss sees the entire world as workers sucking the butts of owners.
> That is the Fred Weiss utopia.
No rational owner or any businessman with ambitions to significantly
grow his business (thus requiring employing many people) either
expects or wants his workers "sucking his butt".
In fact there is a very high correlation between the most successful
companies and the ones always ranked highest as the best places to
work.
An owner who doesn't tend to treat his workers with respect and treat
them accordingly won't keep them for long.
In a prosperous free market economy workers have many choices where to
work - not to mention many options in regard to opportunities they can
pursue (including of course going into business for themselves).
Fred Weiss
John Q Public
You have to realize their model is the entitlement babies (Thus the
least productive)
demanding the wages of the most productive without the effort.
So the job market has few openings for this type of worker (Except Govt.)
Day Brown
> On Dec 24, 5:24 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Fred Weiss sees the entire world as workers sucking the butts of owners.
>> That is the Fred Weiss utopia.
>
> No rational owner or any businessman with ambitions to significantly
> grow his business (thus requiring employing many people) either
> expects or wants his workers "sucking his butt".
>
> In fact there is a very high correlation between the most successful
> companies and the ones always ranked highest as the best places to
> work.
> An owner who doesn't tend to treat his workers with respect and treat
> them accordingly won't keep them for long.
"training" period is, then he'd havta pay for healthcare. So, he fires
them and gets the next round of abundant lowly skilled suckers who think
their minimum wage will be increased later on.
>
> In a prosperous free market economy workers have many choices where to
> work - not to mention many options in regard to opportunities they can
> pursue (including of course going into business for themselves).
any of a number of other economies, whereas in the USA, employers liked
having illegals coming in to increase the supply of labor so that only
those able to tolerate the most abuse and exploitation were kept on.
Which is the way, in lower tech outfits, to maximize profits. For the
near term. However, at some point, the lower classes no longer feel they
have anything left to loose in revolution, so some Leftwing demagogue
arises full of moral indignation about all the exploitation, and soon
enuf, mobs start dragging the bastards out to be shot.
Machiavelli wrote about this. The Roman Aristocracy didnt start with
'bread and circuses' caused they loved the people, but had seen food
riots- as the wages went down, mobs gathered to break into the villas,
loot, and murder owners.
The avid supporters of the free market like Fred would have a good case
if Americans were rational. But they are not. I dont say the ignorant,
lazy neurotic working classes should be paid more because they deserve
it, but if their incomes do not stop declining, revolution will result,
and neither Fred nor his admirers has enuf bullets to protect their own
investments.
The elites controlled the pulpits, but then Gutenburg's books came out
and we saw the Protestant Reformation. Then they controlled the
newspapers, til guys like Hitler came on the radio and made films. The
Soviets controlled the newspapers, TV, Radio, and films, but then, after
Carter left office, the new electronic technologies he funded came on
line, when Reagan took over, and the Soviet jammers no longer worked.
So, the Iron Curtain came down.
And now? Who knows how to control the Internet? The Chinese cant even do
it. I've had email from Chinese hackers. So then, the only question is,
how desperate the masses will be, and who has the resonant message that
promises to solve their problems. It wont be Fred.
Michael Coburn
In any population sample "certain" people will be more prone to one
particular preconceived notion than another. But in the scientific
community there is much less of this than in the larger community. And
even with that in mind the extracts being heralded by the rightarded are
not what the rightarded claim them to be.
>> The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit
>> at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the
>> climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall. To these
>> denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain
>> controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial
>> ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have
>> systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their
>> doctrine that humans are warming the globe.
>
> They do give evidence of the Lysenko Syndrome affecting such scientists.
This "Lysenko Syndrome" seems to be an exercise in "reality" concerning
the politics of this information driven irrational world. Those who
develop true scientific theorems and facts will be swept under the rug if
they do not allow themselves to be employed in the constant struggle for
power that happens well outside the rational world. If they have a true
desire for any alteration in the status quo then they must ally
themselves with the political apparatus of change. And the conservatives
will forever block any change and do all they can to obstruct. This is
called "political reality" and it has nothing to do with the underlying
facts and science. The rightarded are being left out in the cold because
they are rightarded. An alignment of science with the rightarded would
not make any sense at all. It would be like a gaggle of "tobacco company
scientists". And painting climate science (a much larger community than
the tobacco pukes) with that "tobacco company" brush is essentially what
the rightarded are attempting to do.
>> This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the
>> fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use
>> it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s
>> much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the
>> scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities
>> are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple,
>> robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely
>> independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails…
>
> The case is supported by computer simulation where the program itself
> contains questionable assumptions about the climate like unchanging
> values to other factors affecting climate. Many of the U.S. agencies
> holding long-term climate data fight tooth and nail against Freedom of
> information Act attempts to make them available to the public.
And given the recent attacks on the scientific community that have sprung
from these e-mails it is certainly understandable. The scientific
community does not want to have to educate the entire public, some of
which are religious morons that are ineducable, before they can move
forward.
>> If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet
>> again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change
>> researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for
>> information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.
>> Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for
>> researchers facing such a burden….
>
> Public scrutiny is something that certain researchers want to avoid.
It is something that _ALL_ researchers want to avoid. They want to do
research, not public relations.
>> The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will
>> investigate some of the researchers’ own papers….It is Nature’s policy
>> to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for
>> concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies….
>
> Nature does not consider corruption of data as a substantive reason for
> concern.
That is, of course, just a false characterization by an uneducated monkey.
>> In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are
>> human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad
>> them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that
>> undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances
>> that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally,
>> and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide
>> their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA
>> e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as
>> the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use
>> every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and
>> science.
>
> It doesn't undermine scientists and science. It simply challenges the
> scientific status of certain climate researchers.
Taking a statement out of context, claiming or implying that it is in
reference to temperature data when it was in reference to tree ring
correlations and waving it around as "the smoking gun" that proves that
climate change science is an elaborate conspiracy headed up by Al Gore is
_NOT_ an attack on "certain climate researchers". Hence, you have
revealed yourself to be just another rightarded lying pig in league with
the supporters of the oil and coal companies.
This isn't really about science. It is about throwback rigtarded
asswipes assaulting any advance of the species for the sake of preserving
the current pecking order of wealth and power.
Michael Coburn
> On Dec 24, 5:24 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Fred Weiss sees the entire world as workers sucking the butts of
>> owners. That is the Fred Weiss utopia.
>
> No rational owner or any businessman with ambitions to significantly
> grow his business (thus requiring employing many people) either expects
> or wants his workers "sucking his butt".
The problem, with this statement is that in Republican America most
"business men" are totally focused on their own enrichment. They have a
secondary obligation to the stockholders and the employees come dead
last. In the large corporations the people at the top surround
themselves with morons so as to minimize any threat to the throne while
seeking help from outside the circle; while seeking government help.
> In fact there is a very high correlation between the most successful
> companies and the ones always ranked highest as the best places to work.
Show us your data, Fred. That was the management style of the 70's to an
extent and it is not the case now.
> An owner who doesn't tend to treat his workers with respect and treat
> them accordingly won't keep them for long.
High rates of unemployment belie that stupid assertion. There are many
that want to work and cannot find this Shangri-La of employment of which
you speak.
> In a prosperous free market economy workers have many choices where to
> work - not to mention many options in regard to opportunities they can
> pursue (including of course going into business for themselves).
>
> Fred Weiss
In the imaginary wold of Puff the Magic Dragon all things are possible.
And the true bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevers _KNOW_ this as fact.
Fred Weiss
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 05:42:44 -0800, Fred Weiss wrote:
> Show us your data, Fred. That was the management style of the 70's to an
> extent and it is not the case now.
These surveys are published every year by a number of different
sources.
Look it up for yourself. If I'm mistaken you can throw it back in my
face.
Look for "best companies to work for/list" or something like that.
I have no idea what you are referring to by "the management style of
the 70's" and I doubt either do you.
Furthermore I also highly doubt that you had any more of a beneficient
view of management then as compared to what you have now. Leftists
always cite some supposed "better era" in the past except that when
you look up what they were saying at the time it was no different than
what they are saying now.
> > An owner who doesn't tend to treat his workers with respect and treat
> > them accordingly won't keep them for long.
>
> High rates of unemployment belie that stupid assertion.
Umm...we're in a recession.
Look, there is no doubt that there are asshole bosses out there and
workers who endure them. At various times in varying degrees I've had
the experience myself. But the point is that in a free market economy
you have choices. That assumes of course as someone has already said
that you have marketable skills and a good work record. If you are
slug or cipher, if you think people owe you a living, if you lack
ambition and never take initiative, your opportunities might well be
significantly limited. Such people will likely support socialism and
crave its security. But I for one have no interest in structuring an
economy centered around pandering to such mediocrity.
Fred Weiss
Michael Gordge
> Bret Cahill
When are ewe going to start contributing to warming up the planet to
help stop the coldest weather on record killing Americans by the
score?
MG
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> •• HORSE SHIT!!
Now calm down, ewe fucking fascist idiot, the readers realize that ewe
have been hit right between the eyes with your own fucked up fascist
ideology.
MG