Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Lies are effective until you find the truth. (Gobel Warming)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 12:25:28 PM6/21/01
to

Andre Kuyt

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:22:14 PM6/21/01
to

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:48:51 PM6/21/01
to
Sorry this is not fact.  It is environmentalist propaganda .  But there being very effective with their lying.  Hell look at the title.  What else would they say.  It is crap like this that is the problem.  Fancy lies with nothing in back of it.
"Andre Kuyt" <ak...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:OByBIan#AHA.2084@tkmsftngp02...

Frank

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:41:12 PM6/21/01
to

nib

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:40:43 PM6/21/01
to

Jeff

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:54:31 PM6/21/01
to
Heh, that is the link I actually clicked on. The rest is all bullshit.

Frank

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:17:13 PM6/21/01
to
I heard somewhere that the Senate was rejecting the Kyoto already back when Clinton was in office, and that Kyoto is designed to allow other nations to compete with the US.  Don't know the sources.
 
April 2001 issue of Natural History had an interresting article on a hot period during the Paleocene in Wyoming's Bighorn Basin, which the jury is still out on, but sea-floor sourced methane gas, which upon reaction with oxygen would produce CO2, is suspect.
 
Lies and truth.  heh.

Chuspi

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:22:20 PM6/21/01
to
For what it's worth (no pun), Paul Harvey said that global warming is just a big environmentalist lie.

nib

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:27:19 PM6/21/01
to
Heh, don't get me started on the Kyoto bs. You're right, the Senate was going to reject it anyway. Moreover, Clinton had a chance to sign it but didn't, and for good reason. Its just that now its fun to blame Bush saying he's anti-environment. What's more, how many countries do you think have signed it? Its such an important treaty, right? If you just listened to the news you'd think that the US was the only country that was so backwards to not sign the damn thing. Truth is, ONE country has signed it. Wanna guess which one? Nope. Nope. Nope. It was Romania! Why did Romania sign it? Because, under the treaty, they'd most likely be considered a "developing" country and therefore be exempt from its rules. Go figure. The whole thing is a bunch of BS being spun to affect Bush and its working. Even if Al Gore (Mr. Environment) had won the election it wouldn't have made it past Congress. They had already voted 98-0 to have a no-vote on the thing. Moreover, if you look at some adjusted numbers for emissions, the US isn't as bad. We look bad compared to England for example, but that's because of our size. Because of the size of the US air travel is very popular. Jet fuel is one of the worse fuels when it comes to the harmful emissions. So, because we have more air travel than most other European nations, we have worse emissions. However, if you do it by sq. footage of land mass, we're not that bad. Its all a big numbers game and stupid UN bullcrap. I've never been a big believer in the "New World Order", "One World" type of conspiracies but the more I read about the UN the more I start to believe that that's where we're headed.
 
nib

Frank

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:34:33 PM6/21/01
to
Did he cite what would motivate environmentalists to lie about it?  Are environmentalists looking for radio audience rating points?  :-)
 
 
 

nib

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:29:51 PM6/21/01
to
For what its worth, most scientists say that its not provable, one way or the other. We can't predict the freaking weather more than 5 days out (and even that is usually wrong), yet we're supposed to believe that we can really predict what's going to happen in 30 years? Yeah.
 
nib

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:00:48 PM6/21/01
to
They don't trust people to do what they want done.  To get their way they have to take power away from the people and give it to government.  It is stupid because when the government has all control they will do as they please, mostly to help the rich.
 
Strange how the left seems to hate the rich but does all it can to put them in power.

Alex Beckers

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:51:02 PM6/21/01
to
Fist de Yuma <cs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20010619.shtml

I don't think this is the proper forum for a political debate. I
certainly don't want to hear about it here.

Ibn

--
"Be mindful of the prayers you send, pray hard but pray with care
For the tears that you are crying now are just your answered prayers"

Astrin Ymris

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:57:37 PM6/21/01
to
I second that. All in favor say "AYE!".


"Alex Beckers" <ori...@conan.ids.net> wrote in message
news:tj4ggmn...@corp.supernews.com...

Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:04:32 PM6/21/01
to
"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message
news:eHLXGEo#AHA.2132@tkmsftngp02...

> For what its worth, most scientists say that its not provable, one way or
the other. We can't predict the freaking weather more than 5 days out (and
even that is usually wrong), yet we're supposed to believe that we can
really predict what's going to happen in 30 years? Yeah.

While I basically agree with what you're saying, your example is flawed.

As is the case with many chaotic systems, making specific predictions of
behavior in the near future is actually *harder* than making more general
predictions of the system's state long term. The fact that the weather man
has no idea what is going to happen tomorrow, never mind next week, doesn't
mean that he can't say there's a pretty good chance we'll get thirty inches
of rain this year.

Pete


Ramuh

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:05:35 PM6/21/01
to
>Fist de Yuma" <cs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message>
>news:#Rqg4zm#AHA.1916@tkmsftngp03...
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20010619.shtml

I wonder if global warming will be a problem on Auberean? If the icecaps
melt, then perhaps Dereth will be covered with water.. only the highest
mountains in the Linvak Range and the Northern Osteth would be abole the
water line. Could be a fun plot line.. to find two animals of each kind, to
ensure their continued existance. Wonder how they would lock up those vapour
golems..

Oh well...

-Ramuh


Jeff

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:04:37 PM6/21/01
to
At least the UN has zero power without the US. If the UN takes over the world the US will be running it.

nib

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:08:53 PM6/21/01
to
Ok then, explain why the big "global" issue in the 70's was the fact that we
were leading ourselves into another ice age? Now its suddenly a warming
problem? Its because its all BS political sh!t. I mean, if you look at a
graph of the avg. global temperature over the last 10-15+ thousand years
you'd see its ridiculously erratic, and that was before big bad man made the
big bad car.

nib

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:e14RVTo#AHA.1640@tkmsftngp05...

nib

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:10:43 PM6/21/01
to
Sorta. Recently there have been some things that indicate a lessening of the US influence of the UN. I do think, though, that we should pull out, 100%. Once we're gone they'll have no teeth. If we stay, they'll successfully take over the world thanks to us then kick us out and rule us too.
 
nib

Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:30:22 PM6/21/01
to
"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message
news:eRl86Zo#AHA.1312@tkmsftngp04...

> Ok then, explain why the big "global" issue in the 70's was the fact that
we
> were leading ourselves into another ice age? Now its suddenly a warming
> problem? Its because its all BS political sh!t.

Whether or not scientists have correctly predicted the future or not so far
doesn't change the fact that it can be done.

Everyone's got a theory, and the fact that many of them are wrong doesn't
mean that one of them isn't right. If you really believe that it's
literally ALL "BS political shit", then you're failing to understand the
underlying science. Most of the scientists couldn't care less about the
politics; they just want to understand the world better.

Pete


nib

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:28:33 PM6/21/01
to
So, I tell you they can't predict the weather, and you rebut with "they
haven't yet but it can be done"?? My point is I'm not changing my entire
life and I don't want my government to take away my freedoms because some
wacko left-wing movement wants the world to believe that in 30 years we'll
destroy the Earth if we don't quit driving cars. Lets see, there are 3
possibilities for the future temperature of the Earth: Colder, Warmer, the
same. Hmmm. They tried colder and that one didn't work, now they're moving
on to warmer and that one get knocked down by any objective scientist. Guess
that only leaves one more "future" to "predict".

nib


"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message

news:#6Abxho#AHA.1852@tkmsftngp05...

Mike Greenwald

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:53:03 PM6/21/01
to
This is actually the biggest problem with the kyoto agreement. It would GRANT the UN (or some other global authority) some jurisdiction inside the US.  It is globalist in it's scope and removes some of our own power to govern ourselves.  I believe that to be a bad thing in and of itself, regardless of the subject matter.
 
Rhodoman, FrostFell Archer
At least the UN has zero power without the US. If the UN takes over the world the US will be running it.

David Burke

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:57:50 PM6/21/01
to
George Gobel is "warming"?

On the one hand I am happy for him, after all he has been dead for
quite some time.
But on the other hand I am left wondering how this has happened. Was it
reincarnation, has he become undead or has his casket caught on fire?
Was he placed in a cryogenic freezing tube that is now warming? Either
way I am just a little scared and I hope he cools off soon.

Dave

Blackhawk

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:46:46 PM6/21/01
to
Sorry, but I don't get it. What is the lies??
 
Nahaz - Level 43 Unarmed Brawler
Wrack - Level 20 Og-mage
Chamdar - Level 20 Alchemist/Fletcher/Lockpick/Cook
Na'haz - Level 25 Swordfighter
Virtous - Level 24 Sharpshooter

FF

Mike Greenwald

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 4:12:24 PM6/21/01
to
I loved George Gobel. He and Wally Cox were the best things about Hollywood
squares.

Perhaps he's tired of being buried next to "spooky old Alice".

Rho

"David Burke" <dab...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B3251B...@mediaone.net...

David Burke

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 4:33:58 PM6/21/01
to
Nice to know someone else knew what I was referring to :)

Dave

Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 4:41:01 PM6/21/01
to
"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message
news:OVMT6ko#AHA.1532@tkmsftngp04...

> So, I tell you they can't predict the weather, and you rebut with "they
> haven't yet but it can be done"??

No. Methinks you are too invested in the debate (which I haven't even
entered) to listen to what I'm trying to say.

Local weather is very hard to predict, even over short periods of time.
However, the entire system does have a well-defined statistical behavior,
and the fact that local weather cannot be predicted accurately IN NO WAY is
a valid argument for why long-term, general predictions are false.

In other words: you may indeed be correct that scientists aren't correct
about what's happening with global warming/cooling, but the data that you
are trying to use to prove that point is totally irrelevant, and not helpful
to your argument.

On top of all that, you go off and say something ridiculous like accusing
*EVERYONE* involved in the debate of having nefarious political motivations.

If this is how you normally debate, I can see how you might get a little
bitter about never winning one. :) Even if you have valid points, if you
use poor reasoning to support them, no one will listen.

Pete


nib

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 4:44:11 PM6/21/01
to

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:#SI4PJp#AHA.2120@tkmsftngp02...

> "nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OVMT6ko#AHA.1532@tkmsftngp04...
> > So, I tell you they can't predict the weather, and you rebut with "they
> > haven't yet but it can be done"??
>
> No. Methinks you are too invested in the debate (which I haven't even
> entered) to listen to what I'm trying to say.
>
> Local weather is very hard to predict, even over short periods of time.
> However, the entire system does have a well-defined statistical behavior,
> and the fact that local weather cannot be predicted accurately IN NO WAY
is
> a valid argument for why long-term, general predictions are false.

It does? How so? From all the historical data I've seen about the Earth's
temperature its been pretty erratic over the few hundred thousand years that
they've been able to collect data. I'm not sure to what you are referring.

>
> In other words: you may indeed be correct that scientists aren't correct
> about what's happening with global warming/cooling, but the data that you
> are trying to use to prove that point is totally irrelevant, and not
helpful
> to your argument.

Ok, I'll conceed. My exact statement about not predicting tomorrows weather
was done in a bit of jest, but, that doesn't change my point nor does it
make your point correct. I still don't believe (and have never seen the
proof) that long term weather effects can be predicted.

>
> On top of all that, you go off and say something ridiculous like accusing
> *EVERYONE* involved in the debate of having nefarious political
motivations.

Most of them are. Sure, not every single one, but the ones that are vocal
are vocal for a reason. The ones that get picked up and aired on the news
are picked up for a reason. The ones that disagree/dissent are magically
never discussed.

>
> If this is how you normally debate, I can see how you might get a little
> bitter about never winning one. :) Even if you have valid points, if you
> use poor reasoning to support them, no one will listen.

Normally when I have a sit-down facte-to-face debate I'll make sure we spell
out the exact topic and the exact parameters of our discussion. So, no, this
isn't normally how its done. I never really expect to get very far in usenet
debates because its too easy to get side tracked and my style of debate is
really tough to do over an electronic media such as this. I usually like to
ask pointed and thought-provoking questions and have the other person think
through an answer. Its amazing what happens when you debate someone by
making them actually think through their point.

>
> Pete

nib

>
>


Mike Greenwald

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:24:44 PM6/21/01
to
Interesting.   The two "Policing"s to which you refer are quite different.  I assume by the US policing the world you mean the times when we've meddled militarily in other's affairs outside our own.  While I don't often support this, there have been times when we have been asked, invited, begged to come help with these things. This is very different from the US imposing it's political or environment will on others.  The "policing" that I refer to in respect to Kyoto is one that has a global authority superceding a nation's authority (any nation, not just the US) to govern within it's borders and set its own policies and laws.  That is quite a different matter.
 
Self-interest is the only consistently predictable behavior that anyone can expect from ANY person, region or nation, for the most part.  Anything else is pure fantasy.  "making the rules tougher for enviromentcriminals" is not what Kyoto does, if you understand the "who" and the "how much"s of global pollution.  the kyoto agreement excludes China and India, two of the worst contributors of greenhouse gases.  There is so much wrong with this agreement that it's not even worth arguing about much longer.  Do I think that we should take care of the planet? Of course.  Kyoto is not the way to do it.  It won't even help.
 
What I find amusing is the European leaders scoffing at Bush for dissing Kyoto when NONE of the EU nations have adopted it.
 
Rhodoman
Umm, I don't wan't to turn this into a US/World debatte but isn't this the mentality we've come to expect from the US. Let's police the world and damn the world if they police us. Furthermore, is it alltogether wise to just act in self intrest. Think of the generations to come. They are going to live here in a poluted world with oxygentanks on their backs. Nevermind the greenhouse effects but the polution does destroy the air we breath so making the rules tougher for enviromentcriminals is something everyone should support.
 
Nahaz - Level 43 Unarmed Brawler
Wrack - Level 20 Og-mage
Chamdar - Level 20 Alchemist/Fletcher/Lockpick/Cook
Na'haz - Level 25 Swordfighter
Virtous - Level 24 Sharpshooter

FF
"Mike Greenwald" <mgre...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:DgsY6.156$lR4....@news.pacbell.net...

Blackhawk

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:08:14 PM6/21/01
to
Umm, I don't wan't to turn this into a US/World debatte but isn't this the mentality we've come to expect from the US. Let's police the world and damn the world if they police us. Furthermore, is it alltogether wise to just act in self intrest. Think of the generations to come. They are going to live here in a poluted world with oxygentanks on their backs. Nevermind the greenhouse effects but the polution does destroy the air we breath so making the rules tougher for enviromentcriminals is something everyone should support.
 
Nahaz - Level 43 Unarmed Brawler
Wrack - Level 20 Og-mage
Chamdar - Level 20 Alchemist/Fletcher/Lockpick/Cook
Na'haz - Level 25 Swordfighter
Virtous - Level 24 Sharpshooter

FF
"Mike Greenwald" <mgre...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:DgsY6.156$lR4....@news.pacbell.net...

Senjin

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:14:10 PM6/21/01
to

Peter Duniho wrote in message <#SI4PJp#AHA.2120@tkmsftngp02>...

>
>No. Methinks you are too invested in the debate (which I haven't even
>entered) to listen to what I'm trying to say.
>
>Local weather is very hard to predict, even over short periods of time.
>However, the entire system does have a well-defined statistical behavior,
>and the fact that local weather cannot be predicted accurately IN NO WAY is
>a valid argument for why long-term, general predictions are false.
>
>In other words: you may indeed be correct that scientists aren't correct
>about what's happening with global warming/cooling, but the data that you
>are trying to use to prove that point is totally irrelevant, and not
helpful
>to your argument.

You are correct of course; many branches of science depend on the ability to
predict the behavior of a population, even when individual data points are
wildly variable. If not as applicable as he intended, his example still is
apropos: If the computer models for predicting short-term weather are so
inaccurate, then perhaps there are invalid assumptions in the computer
models for long-term weather as well.

One thing you said didn't ring true (to me, anyway, I'm no meteorologist).
Who's to say that "the entire system does have a well-defined statistical
behavior"? Verifiable data has been gathered for only 100 years or so, and
with man's increasing ability to affect the biosphere, IMO the Earth's
weather is anything but a closed system.


Modnar

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:52:17 PM6/21/01
to

"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message
news:eGsDtCo#AHA.1844@tkmsftngp05...

<<
Heh, don't get me started on the Kyoto bs. You're right, the Senate was
going to reject it anyway. Moreover, Clinton had a chance to sign it but
didn't, and for good reason. Its just that now its fun to blame Bush saying
he's anti-environment. What's more, how many countries do you think have
signed it? Its such an important treaty, right? If you just listened to the
news you'd think that the US was the only country that was so backwards to
not sign the damn thing. Truth is, ONE country has signed it. Wanna guess
which one? Nope. Nope. Nope. It was Romania! Why did Romania sign it?
Because, under the treaty, they'd most likely be considered a "developing"
country and therefore be exempt from its rules. Go figure.
>>

Bzzt. Get your facts straight.

http://www.unfccc.de/resource/kpstats.pdf


--
Neo D'Orc, Frostfell gimp
I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost...

Chuspi

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:50:09 PM6/21/01
to
NAY! I say... in fact NAY! It is easy for you guys to skip over something
and not read it. I'm quite enjoying it.


"Astrin Ymris" <As...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:BsrY6.2958$wU6.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...

Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:54:36 PM6/21/01
to
"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message
news:#9ONKPp#AHA.916@tkmsftngp04...

> Most of them are. Sure, not every single one, but the ones that are vocal
> are vocal for a reason. The ones that get picked up and aired on the news
> are picked up for a reason. The ones that disagree/dissent are magically
> never discussed.

For every vocal environmentalist or anti-environmentalist, there's at least
ten genuine scientists working hard on the problem trying to learn the
*truth*, without regard for politics. And many of them actually believe
global warming or global cooling is real.

I'd hardly say that even "most" is an accurate description of the number of
people who are solely involved for political reasons.

Pete


Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 6:12:14 PM6/21/01
to
"Senjin" <unde...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:uqmkMfp#AHA.1396@tkmsftngp05...

> One thing you said didn't ring true (to me, anyway, I'm no meteorologist).
> Who's to say that "the entire system does have a well-defined statistical
> behavior"? Verifiable data has been gathered for only 100 years or so,
and
> with man's increasing ability to affect the biosphere, IMO the Earth's
> weather is anything but a closed system.

My point was simply that there was no logical progression in the statement I
was talking about.

That said, there *are* well-known statistical trends with regards to global
weather. Between the months of June and November, tropical depressions,
storms, and hurricanes will form. They almost *never* happen any other
time. When the flow of cold water in the Pacific is one direction, there is
always a "La Nina" effect; when the flow is the other direction, there's an
"El Nino" effect. That's just to name a couple of effects (the former is an
annual effect, while the latter can last several years).

It seems likely that just as these short term statistically valid models
provide predictable behavior, longer-term models will as well. I agree
we're short on data and long on theory right now, but that in no way proves
that it's not possible, nor does it in any way prove that one or more
current theories are incorrect.

With respect to the question of whether Earth's weather is a closed system
or not...for the most part, it is actually. I mean, sure...there are
numerous tiny meteorites raining down on us all the time, and other
astronomical contributes, but they have an incredibly negligible effect.
The only real external influence is the Sun, and since it itself is a closed
system, by extension, the Sun plus the Earth is also a closed system.

There are a number of excellent debating points with respect to the validity
of global warming and cooling theories (I keep saying both because, while
global warming is the hot topic for now, there are actually a lot of
scientists that feel we're actually still heading into an ice age).
However, one thing that I find remarkably naive is the people who feel that
if we somehow can prove that there's no trend toward global warming right
now, that we should feel free to pollute the atmosphere with whatever gases
and particulates that we want.

It seems painfully obvious to me that we should attempt to minimize any
effect humanity has on the ecosystem, within reasonable efforts.

Of course, that's really what the whole Kyoto thing comes down to, people
like Fist who want to turn it into an "us vs. them, let's denigrate those
with political beliefs that don't match ours" fighting match
notwithstanding. The fact is, I think that almost everyone is agreed that
it's good to minimize pollution. The thing that people don't agree on is
where do we draw the line? How much money do we spend keeping the
atmosphere clean before we call it "clean enough" and "not worth spending
any more money"?

If only people could stick to talking about *that* rather than accusing each
other of trying to further their own political agendas (ironically, I think
each side is actually correct, since those accusations themselves are the
act of trying to further their own political agendas).

Geez...for a debate that I had no interest in getting into, I sure got
sucked into this thread hard.

Pete


David Burke

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 6:10:13 PM6/21/01
to
Since you guys are still at it:

I saw Bush give a speech recently, he was talking about emission levels.
Then said that sulfur actually reflects the rays from the sun that would
cause the greenhouse effect. I sat there for a second stunned. While
sulfur may reflect lots of things the one thing that it does do is
become acid rain and destroy lakes. So here is Bush advocating that we
let more sulfur into the air to stop global warming and cause more acid
rain :)

I wonder how more acid rain will effect George Gobel?
Dave


Senjin

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 6:34:19 PM6/21/01
to

Peter Duniho wrote in message ...

>
>With respect to the question of whether Earth's weather is a closed system
>or not...for the most part, it is actually. I mean, sure...there are
>numerous tiny meteorites raining down on us all the time, and other
>astronomical contributes, but they have an incredibly negligible effect.

ROFL, I think the dinosaurs would disagree :) There's also the issue of
losing atmospheric gas to space, but I've never seen anything on how
significant (if at all) that is.

Closed system was perhaps a poor choice of words. What I wanted to get
across was that since the historical data is from such a small fraction of
the Earth's history, the data has been demonstrated to be less than adequate
to predict short-term weather, and the "X-factor" of man introducing rapid
and wide-spread changes to the planet, there is no basis IMO to assert that
long-term weather has well-defined statistical behavior, or rather that we
have a clue as to what that behavior will be.


Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:18:49 PM6/21/01
to
I find it really strange that Cuba and China are on the human right committee and we are not.  He are condemned for executing someone after endless appeals. They execute minutes after a trial and not a peep.  We bend over backwards to give people rights.  They give their people no right.  Very strange.

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:50:16 PM6/21/01
to
The problem is most scientists say we cannot know about global warming with
current data. The press reports the exact opposite. The big one this month
is a report that comes down to "We don't know". A summary written by the
politicians said "they are sure". The summary comes out and every press
room reports it. The truth comes out a short time later and, nothing is
reported.

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message

news:#6Abxho#AHA.1852@tkmsftngp05...

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:58:36 PM6/21/01
to
We love open debate. The problem is there is little of it in the mainstream
press. It is a defacto done as far as there concerned. The fact we have
cleaner air than 20 years ago does not effect them. The fact we have more
trees than 100 years ago does not effect them. The fact that they might be
wrong does not effect them. I would not care what THEY think if they were
not wanting me to pay for there faulty thinking.

Mike Greenwald

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:47:53 PM6/21/01
to
Well I agree with most of the stuff below except for the "Folks like
Fist..." part. Perhaps this is just me subconciously deciding that the
folks that agree with me must have big white hats on and can do no wrong but
it seems to me that most of the denigrating that I've heard has come from
the folks that are in favor of enforcing the Kyoto protocal. For some
reason, the approach that you describe below as:

"How much money do we spend keeping the atmosphere clean before we call it
"clean enough" and "not worth spending any more money"?

IS the approach that I believe is advocated by the Bush administration and
by conservatives in general. For some reason, we seem to be continually
characterized as cigar-chomping, toxic-waste spewing lunkheads that don't
give a damn about the earth.

Rhodoman, FrostFell Archer
:


"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message

news:e70KO8p#AHA.1452@tkmsftngp05...

Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:57:19 PM6/21/01
to
"Mike Greenwald" <mgre...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:PIvY6.1184$lR4.1...@news.pacbell.net...

> Well I agree with most of the stuff below except for the "Folks like
> Fist..." part.

That comment came from the fact that Fist started this thread by posting a
link to a politically charged article. IMHO, only someone interested in
stirring the pot of politics would do such a thing.

Pete


Mike Greenwald

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:04:29 PM6/21/01
to
Perhaps. Though (again, probably because I agree with him), that article
was hardly charged. It stated a side of this issue that I think is a long
time coming out and a good thing for folks to read.

Of course, dropping it into this group as OT, could be construed as
"stirring the pot" in it's own right.

Rho

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message

news:uBvb82q#AHA.1468@tkmsftngp05...

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:18:57 PM6/21/01
to
Or needs a place to let the truth be debated.

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message

news:uBvb82q#AHA.1468@tkmsftngp05...

Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:40:49 PM6/21/01
to
"Fist de Yuma" <cs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:#2VJf8q#AHA.1452@tkmsftngp05...

> Or needs a place to let the truth be debated.

Since this isn't the place, it can only be considered pot-stirring.

It's one thing for an on-topic thread to spin off a completely off-topic
tangent. It's an entirely different thing to be *starting* off-topic
threads. The latter is totally inappropriate.

Pete


Axemaster Setfeb

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 10:05:07 PM6/21/01
to Fist de Yuma
The following text requires hypothetical thinking - If you ar unable to
think abstractly please restrain from reading or at least restrain from
commenting. Thanks.

Hypothetic scenario:

The World in 2127: After the USA (Cuba joined as 69th state after Peru
in 2064) rejected the Kyoto agreement in the beginning of the century,
CO2 emmisions skyrocketed. It has been undoubtly proven by the MIT in
cooperation with the US government that this CO2 emissons lead to the
most serious draught in recorded history leaving half the worlds
population of 10 billion people in the 3rd world basically without food
for 4 years. 3 billion people starved in the period from 2084 to 2088.

The UN global court in DenHaag with the honorable judge Mr. Kim Yo-Hnut
presiding, ruled today that the USA is sentenced to pay compensations in
the height of 10% of the annual GDP over the next 7 years to the
Afroarab Union. The US president - Ms. Arancha Rodriguez - expressed her
sincere regrets and appologized to the global community.

Fist de Yuma wrote:

> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20010619.shtml

Modnar

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:53:02 PM6/21/01
to
"Fist de Yuma" <cs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:#2VJf8q#AHA.1452@tkmsftngp05...

This ain't that place, sir.

Modnar

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:54:55 PM6/21/01
to

"Fist de Yuma" <cs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eeHYHxq#AHA.2140@tkmsftngp04...

> We love open debate. The problem is there is little of it in the
mainstream
> press. It is a defacto done as far as there concerned. The fact we have
> cleaner air than 20 years ago does not effect them. The fact we have more
> trees than 100 years ago does not effect them.

Care to cite a reputable source for your tree statement? I have to admit I'm
skeptical about that claim, but eager to be enlightened.

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:27:09 AM6/22/01
to
Dam going to make me look it up again. It is easy to do that yourself and
findout a lot of things you were lied about.


"Modnar" <mod...@newguy.com> wrote in message
news:9guc7...@enews4.newsguy.com...

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:40:15 AM6/22/01
to
I could not find the reference I was looking for but this is a well
established fact. I'm not surprised it is unknown in general as it does not
fit the current politic.

This is good reading as well
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20010620.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20010621.shtml

"Modnar" <mod...@newguy.com> wrote in message
news:9guc7...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>

Senjin

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:22:42 AM6/22/01
to

Axemaster Setfeb wrote in message <3B32A7D2...@public3.bta.net.cn>...

>The UN global court in DenHaag with the honorable judge Mr. Kim Yo-Hnut
>presiding, ruled today that the USA is sentenced to pay compensations in
>the height of 10% of the annual GDP over the next 7 years to the
>Afroarab Union. The US president - Ms. Arancha Rodriguez - expressed her
>sincere regrets and appologized to the global community.

"President Rodriguez was later heard joking with a State Department aide,
'So, how much do we owe the UN now anyway?' This indicates that Rodriguez
plans to add the fine to the backlog of US dues to the UN, a time-honored
tradition stretching back to the previous century." *grin*


Modnar

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 3:07:27 AM6/22/01
to
"Fist de Yuma" <cs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:exbshOt#AHA.1404@tkmsftngp04...

> I could not find the reference I was looking for but this is a well
> established fact. I'm not surprised it is unknown in general as it does
not
> fit the current politic.
>

From the digging I did, it's indeed a "well established fact," though
twisted around a bit by some. According to studies done by the US Geological
Survey:(http://biology.usgs.gov/luhna/contents.html)

(paraphrased from lengthier report)
1) There is less forest area in the US than when the country was first
settled, although there is more now than there was in the late 1800s (i.e.
the trumpeted 100 yrs ago). In part this is due to the end of the robber
baron deforestation era at the turn of the last century.

2) Pre-settlement forests consisted of relatively small numbers of very
large trees, and large numbers of smaller trees.

3) Logging, as well as clearance for farming followed by abandonment,
removed the large trees and either left the small ones or allowed smaller
trees to regrow.

Putting these observations together, while there is less land in forests now
than there was prior to European settlement, and there are fewer large
trees, it is likely that there are more trees now because of the very large
number of relatively small trees. As forests mature the number of trees will
decline steeply, due to the self-thinning nature of forests.

So while it may be true that there are more individual trees now than in,
say 1650, there is in fact less forest cover, fewer large trees and much
less merchantable timber.

Palatine [WE]

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 4:49:30 AM6/22/01
to
Well, no disrespect but America was late getting involved in the last two
major world events. Why change their habits if Global Warming is one ?

"Senjin" <unde...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:#n9vOwt#AHA.1352@tkmsftngp04...

Cyrus

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 10:10:54 AM6/22/01
to
The article does make a good point about the protocol exempting China and India. If they tree huggers are so concerned, why did they exempt those two nations?
"Fist de Yuma" <cs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:#Rqg4zm#AHA.1916@tkmsftngp03...

nib

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 10:47:54 AM6/22/01
to
Thanks for that link. Very informative. You're correct, more than just
Romaina have signed it (34 total). But, my point is still true. Did you take
a look of the 34 that did sign it? Of the 34 NONE of the countries are
significant in world politics. MAYBE you could make a case that Mexico is
but that's about it. A short list of the countries that haven't signed it:
"European Communities", Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, United
Kingdom, Italy and Spain. So, my point was that all the other countries that
are publicly criticizing Bush for not signing the damn thing are being
hypocritical as they haven't signed it themselves.

nib

"Modnar" <mod...@newguy.com> wrote in message

news:9gtmu...@enews4.newsguy.com...

nib

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 10:53:55 AM6/22/01
to
What do you consider the "last two major world events"?

nib

"Palatine [WE]" <NoS...@Spamless.Spam> wrote in message
news:#dhn#hv#AHA.1940@tkmsftngp04...

Palatine [WE]

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 11:43:33 AM6/22/01
to
World Wars I and II, both of which the USA were reticent to get involved
with, not due to ideology but purely and simply economics. More profitable
to not be involved.
(This isn't a dig at anyone, the help during those conflicts, when it
arrived was more than appreciated. But how much suffering would have been
alleviated had there not been such a huge delay ?)


"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message

news:uA0uEwy#AHA.1492@tkmsftngp05...

nib

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 11:49:56 AM6/22/01
to
You expect the US to jump in and solve European problems? How much suffering
would have been alleviated had the European nations shown some backbone when
Hitler invaded Poland and stopped him then and there?

nib

"Palatine [WE]" <NoS...@Spamless.Spam> wrote in message

news:OxNWYIz#AHA.1404@tkmsftngp05...

John J. Case

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 11:53:01 AM6/22/01
to
"Palatine [WE]" wrote:
>
> World Wars I and II, both of which the USA were reticent to get involved
> with, not due to ideology but purely and simply economics. More profitable
> to not be involved.
> (This isn't a dig at anyone, the help during those conflicts, when it
> arrived was more than appreciated. But how much suffering would have been
> alleviated had there not been such a huge delay ?)
>


Not sure about WW1 but the USA stayed out of WW2 not due to economic but
politics. We, like the rest of the world, were still in a deep
depression when the war started. And it was ALL the way over there
across an ocean or two. After WW1 the USA did become very
isolationist. Anything not happening on this side of the globe was not
an issue. Any attempt to make European affairs an American issue was
not greated well.

Our involvement in WW2 was the only thing that pulled the States out of
the economic depression. Not any of the alphabet soup programs started
by FDR compares to the economic boon that was the American War Machine.
Wars tend to be very good for an economy if you are not involved
directly. It took the US a while to even start running guns to our
Allies. If it were about economic benifits we would have been in much
earlier.

JJC

Palatine [WE]

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:24:32 PM6/22/01
to
The US has been quick to jump in on other occasions (Vietnam, the Gulf, The
Middle East).

Don't believe everything Hollywood tells you about WWII.
There would not have been a hope in hells chance of the US surviving against
the Axis had the UK, Commonwealth and free Europeans not fought for nearly
two years.

"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message

news:#0biTPz#AHA.1424@tkmsftngp07...

Palatine [WE]

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:26:28 PM6/22/01
to
Economically the UK was in a similar if not worse situation than the US but
still saw that action would be needed.

The UK was not only a good launching ground for the Allied Invasion, it
would have also have been a good place for the Nazis to start an attack on
the American continent. Many of the people in the US knew that but, as a
country, struggled to find the will to enter into the war until forced
(sorry can't think of another word) into it by the Japanese.

"John J. Case" <JC...@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:3B3369DD...@rcsis.com...

nib

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:31:46 PM6/22/01
to
First of all, I don't get my information from Hollywood. Since you're
obviously making a reference to Pearl Harbor, know that I haven't seen it.

The Gulf: Yes, quick because our direct interest was at stake.
Vietnam: Due to fears of world communism. Probably a mistake to get
involved.
Middle East: A whole mess of crap that we should be in in the first place.
We'll never solve their problems.

nib

"Palatine [WE]" <NoS...@Spamless.Spam> wrote in message

news:OTSWRfz#AHA.1940@tkmsftngp07...

George

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:58:11 AM6/22/01
to
I hate top posting contests...

This sounds like a red herring argument to be sure. What bearing does
the reluctantce of past administrations to trade the lives of it's
citizens for the lives of Europeans have on the issue of global
warming?

Nasier
Leafcull

In article <OTSWRfz#AHA.1940@tkmsftngp07>, "Palatine [WE]"
<NoS...@Spamless.Spam> wrote:

--
to reply: change .com to .net

John J. Case

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:46:36 PM6/22/01
to
"Palatine [WE]" wrote:
>
> The US has been quick to jump in on other occasions (Vietnam, the Gulf, The
> Middle East).
>
> Don't believe everything Hollywood tells you about WWII.
> There would not have been a hope in hells chance of the US surviving against
> the Axis had the UK, Commonwealth and free Europeans not fought for nearly
> two years.


Totally different times. Pre WW2 was such a different time than the
early 90's for the US.

Secondly, we were anything BUT quick hopping into Vietnam. And out of
but we can save that for later. We only entered that mess after the
French pulled out. Troop deployment was slow. And the war was fought
on a sliding scale. Had we been quick and decisive it would have been
over in short order.

JJC

Modnar

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 11:27:46 AM6/22/01
to
"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message
news:uli8ssy#AHA.872@tkmsftngp07...

> Thanks for that link. Very informative. You're correct, more than just
> Romaina have signed it (34 total). But, my point is still true. Did you
take
> a look of the 34 that did sign it? Of the 34 NONE of the countries are
> significant in world politics. MAYBE you could make a case that Mexico is
> but that's about it. A short list of the countries that haven't signed it:
> "European Communities", Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, United
> Kingdom, Italy and Spain. So, my point was that all the other countries
that
> are publicly criticizing Bush for not signing the damn thing are being
> hypocritical as they haven't signed it themselves.
>

I won't argue your points, was just pointing out the facts :-)

Modnar

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:05:09 PM6/22/01
to
"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message
news:#0biTPz#AHA.1424@tkmsftngp07...

> You expect the US to jump in and solve European problems? How much
suffering
> would have been alleviated had the European nations shown some backbone
when
> Hitler invaded Poland and stopped him then and there?
>
> nib
>


Umm, they did. Or tried to, anyway. Hitler invaded Poland Sept 1, 1939, and
Britain and France and allies declared war Sept 3. (The US declared
neutrality on the 5th.)

Had you backed up further and asked the same question about Germany annexing
Austria or invading Czechoslovakia in the late 30's, you point would have
been well made.

nib

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:49:02 PM6/22/01
to
Well, I honestly do appreciate getting that information. I always try to
have the facts straight. Just shows that you should always double check your
information.

nib

"Modnar" <mod...@newguy.com> wrote in message

news:9gvst...@enews4.newsguy.com...

nib

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:50:33 PM6/22/01
to
Oops, you got me twice. :) I knew he invaded some country well before war
was declared, I just thought it was Poland, not Austria.

nib

"Modnar" <mod...@newguy.com> wrote in message

news:9gvu1...@enews4.newsguy.com...

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:41:07 PM6/22/01
to
I think you mean a bit early. If he was stopped at sudanenland (sp?) the
war would never had started.

Of course of after WWI they had been a little more reasonable with demands
Hitler would never had gotten power.

"nib" <n...@springmail.com> wrote in message

news:#0biTPz#AHA.1424@tkmsftngp07...

Kirby Krueger

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:40:37 PM6/22/01
to

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:#6Abxho#AHA.1852@tkmsftngp05...
>
> Everyone's got a theory, and the fact that many of them are wrong doesn't
> mean that one of them isn't right. If you really believe that it's
> literally ALL "BS political shit", then you're failing to understand the
> underlying science. Most of the scientists couldn't care less about the
> politics; they just want to understand the world better.
>

WARNING: Hot button pushed! Long off-topic rant initiated! Flee now!

I wish you were really right. Unfortunately, it's often not the case.

My father is the department head of Rangeland Resources at Oregon State
University. Basically, this is the science of ranching. He's been doing
this for years, before the environmental movement picked up steam. I do
believe that he's strongly interested in good science and the truth,
regardless of political agenda. (And I happen to disagree with most of his
political beliefs, at that.) It should be obvious that nobody has more to
gain than cattle ranchers by using public lands in a scientifically
sustainable fashion, and this is their goal. Nearly all of the Ranchers are
on board.

But, alas, there is a strong faction of 'scientists' that are really
environmental idealogues with scientific degrees. Now, I consider myself
strongly in favor of protecting the environment, even if it has a negative
impact on economic concerns - but as a scientific mind myself, I'm apalled
by some of the 'science' that gets done.

For instance, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife defines water
quality in terms of, among other things, water temperature. There's no
correction made for ambient temperature - if the water is over 78 degrees (I
don't recall the exact number, but it's something like that), it's defined
as polluted. Even in the summer. By this definition, our water was
polluted long before man crawled across the land bridge in Alaska. And this
is the LAW. The effect of this is to restrict cattle from waterways, since
grazing reduces the shade available.

Actual studies done don't support the conclusions made. There are hundreds
of studies that don't show any effect of cattle grazing along streams on the
fish runs. These are ignored, because the goal of the environmental leaders
in Oregon are not to reach compromise. ("We're here to create conflict, not
compromise" - actual quote from the head of the Oregon Natural Resource
Commission.) The conclusion, that we need to return the world as close to
the natural state as possible, is given, and then anything that supports
that goal is used to support it, anything else is ignored.

There was a symposium recently on whether it should be policy to put fish
guts in the rivers, on the idea that it would help improve the salmon runs.
Really! The fish scientists had some theories as to why this would
encourage the runs to return, and maybe they were right. But, did they try
it? Did they do a controlled experiment? No! Not at all! They were
making decisions on public policy based on theory, without doing the
experiment, analyzing the data, and seeing if it was right or not.

As an evironmentalist, I'm very saddened to hear these stories, and there
are lots of them. There are scientists that want to help the environment,
do real science, and follow the truth. There are also scientists that are
trying to prove a conclusion, and those have systematically taken power in
the environmental movement. So, skepticism is warranted. If there isn't
data, it's not science. If they haven't done experiments, it's not science.
It's educated guesses, and may be interesting, but no more so than any
science fiction novel.

-- Kirby


nib

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:39:44 PM6/22/01
to

"Fist de Yuma" <cs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:#h$kVk0#AHA.1492@tkmsftngp05...

> I think you mean a bit early. If he was stopped at sudanenland (sp?) the
> war would never had started.

Perhaps. As much as the US is disliked in the middle east I image we had to
be very careful about our involvement.

>
> Of course of after WWI they had been a little more reasonable with demands
> Hitler would never had gotten power.

I'll agree with that.

Fist de Yuma

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 3:01:08 PM6/22/01
to
Thanks.

"Kirby Krueger" <kir...@best.com> wrote in message
news:u1FmCp0#AHA.1712@tkmsftngp03...

nib

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:50:30 PM6/22/01
to
I'm sure everyone has their "stupid environmental law" story but I'm going
to share one because I think it shines some light on the problem. First, I'm
not "against" the environment, even though I don't support much (if any) of
the environmental movement. I'm for sensible conservation, not blind
fanaticism. I believe business and the economy should not be hindered by our
environmental policy, to extremes. My general belief is that companies
should be responsible for leaving an area as clean as they found it. (i.e.
no dumping pollutants in the river, etc.). Anyway, here is an example of why
logical people such as myself find the environmental movement too extreme to
be legitimate. In one of the NW states (Washington or Oregon, don't remember
which) there were 2 particular laws that governed the state water should be
before it was released into a nearby river. I'm creating the actual numbers
because I don't remember them but the point is the same:

One law said that there could be no more than 10 ppm (parts per million) of
this particular pollutant in the water
The other law say the company had to remove atleast 30% of the pollutant
from the water.

Well, what happened? If the water was polluted at 6 ppm, it turned out to be
more cost efficient (and easier) to ADD pollutants to the water to get it up
to 12 or 13 ppm of pollutant and then remove the 30% getting it back down to
something like 8 or 9 ppm. Thus, they released a water into the river that
was MORE polluted after the law was followed than it would have been
otherwise. That's the kind of thing that goes on all the time.

nib

"Kirby Krueger" <kir...@best.com> wrote in message
news:u1FmCp0#AHA.1712@tkmsftngp03...
>

Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 6:44:17 PM6/22/01
to
"Kirby Krueger" <kir...@best.com> wrote in message
news:u1FmCp0#AHA.1712@tkmsftngp03...
> I wish you were really right. Unfortunately, it's often not the case.

"It's often not the case"? Either it is, or it's not. No "often" about it,
since my statement was regarding the majority of scientists. Either the
majority ARE politically motivated, or the majority ARE NOT politically
motivated.

I'm sure you're not trying to say that "most days, the majority are
politically motivated, but some days the majority are not", but that's the
only way to interpret your response to what I wrote and still be consistent
with the thread.

Pete


Kirby Krueger

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 8:29:27 PM6/22/01
to

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:OeHXw02#AHA.2012@tkmsftngp04...

> "Kirby Krueger" <kir...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:u1FmCp0#AHA.1712@tkmsftngp03...
> > I wish you were really right. Unfortunately, it's often not the case.
>
> "It's often not the case"? Either it is, or it's not. No "often" about
it,
> since my statement was regarding the majority of scientists. Either the
> majority ARE politically motivated, or the majority ARE NOT politically
> motivated.
>
How about, "In many situations, the majority of scientists are politically
motivated". As in, if we're talking about Global Warning, it's not the case
that most scientists are only looking at pure science. With respect to,
say, the age of the Universe, most scientists are looking at pure science.
Does that work?

But, I'll acknowledge that this is picking semantic nits, and go ahead and
be non-circumspect. With respect to environmental issues, I unfortunately
believe that most scientists are not only looking at pure science and
following the conclusions logically drawn from that. Rather, most are
starting with a conclusion that supports their worldview and trying to prove
it.

I can't prove most, obviously, but if that's a problem, substitute 'many,
including those in positions of power', and I have no problems stating that.
And that's a huge problem, by itself. It's a systematic ideological
corruption, that promotes people who share viewpoints to the top of the
political spectrum, and keeps people whose science is more controversial on
the defensive and out of view.

It ends up working against the environmental movement in two ways. One is
that it engenders mistrust, evidenced by dialogues such as this. Secondly,
it allows opponents to easily bring in expert witnesses to refute their
claims and destroy their credibility - when you're doing sloppy science, you
get burned.

There are so many real environmental issues that need study, and that we can
back up, that it's a shame the movement is so politically motivated down to
the core. I suppose this is nothing new - and there's certainly equally
shoddy research coming from corporate grants. I'd love to see the day when
the public was willing to pay attention to serious scientific scrutiny of
claims, but alas, I doubt it will happen.

The worst case is if they're right, but nobody takes them seriously because
of past transgressions.

And if that happens, who will save Dereth?

(Er, wait, I'm horribly confused again.)

-- Kirby


Mae, Queen of Maisland

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 10:32:33 PM6/22/01
to

The reduction of the numbers of Large Trees has also made the Forests we
have into a better Habitat for Deer, whose Numbers have increased.


Peter Duniho

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 1:04:24 PM6/23/01
to
"Kirby Krueger" <kir...@best.com> wrote in message
news:OM5e#r3#AHA.1604@tkmsftngp03...

> How about, "In many situations, the majority of scientists are politically
> motivated". As in, if we're talking about Global Warning, it's not the
case
> that most scientists are only looking at pure science. With respect to,
> say, the age of the Universe, most scientists are looking at pure science.
> Does that work?

I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one.

As in, I believe that even in the case of global warming, most of the
scientists doing active research are NOT politically motivated.

The ones you hear from most often might be, but that's a very poor way to
pick statistical samples.

Pete


0 new messages