OT: UN Climate Nazis

[calvin]

Following the news part of this link is documentation
for the evicted heretic's views:

http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckton-evicted-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-from-the-hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.



--

- ReFlex76

- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>

[RichA]

On Dec 7, 3:58 am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:48:35 -0800 (PST), calvin
>
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >Following the news part of this link is documentation
> >for the evicted heretic's views:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk
>

> >http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckto...

>
>   With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
> nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.
>

What next, commie Pedro? Jail for scientists and politicians who
don't believe in the quack AGW theories like Suzuki wants, or re-
education camps?

[trotsky]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[BTR1701]

In article <pqb3c8d7ard5tjm8i...@4ax.com>,

Oh, you mean the weather?

[nick]

On Dec 6, 9:48 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Following the news part of this link is documentation
> for the evicted heretic's views:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk
>

> http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckto...

This "Lord" Monckton character's a crackpot. Do a Google search and
learn about the guy you're giving credibility to.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 02:52:31 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

: )

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

No, the climate. weather:days::climate:years

[calvin]

On Dec 7, 9:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:52:49 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article <pqb3c8d7ard5tjm8ig8qpf4f0nulub3...@4ax.com>,

> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:48:35 -0800 (PST), calvin
> >> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> >Following the news part of this link is documentation
> >> >for the evicted heretic's views:
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk

> >> >http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckto...
> >> >d-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-from-t­he-

> >> >hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials
>
> >>   With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
> >> nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.
>
> >Oh, you mean the weather?
>
>   No, the climate.  weather:days::climate:years

No. weather years, climate decades.

[Tom]

Oh bullshit. What weather event on Earth has lasted years?

Tom

[moviePig]

What meteorological manifestations would trigger *your* personal alarm
here?

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Obveeus]

I don't plan to raise a call for worry until I own beachfront property.
...and no, I don't plan on moving to the ocean. I'm waiting for the ocean
to come to me.

[Red Cloud]

On Dec 7, 6:52 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <pqb3c8d7ard5tjm8ig8qpf4f0nulub3...@4ax.com>,

>  Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:48:35 -0800 (PST), calvin
> > <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > >Following the news part of this link is documentation
> > >for the evicted heretic's views:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk
>

> > >http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckto...

> > >d-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-from-the-
> > >hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials
>
> >   With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
> > nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.
>
> Oh, you mean the weather?

The effects of Climate Change won't happen until "The Day After
Tomorrow" comes as reality. So these anti-GW goons are still waiting
for Hollyweird fantasy film to become a real life experience.

Slow process of climate change on global scale is boring. Ok so we
need climate change in nanosecond scale and that's what makes
excitement and entertainment. In all, GW topic is kind of
entertainment like UFO stuff. It even got
into political topic. Hey the cold war topic is over.

[calvin]

That's too big a question, so I'll give an example of illogic
that does not trigger my alarm. That is when some alarmist
says something like, "in the last ten year period we have
seen a level of so-and-so that has not been seen over a
ten year period since the late 1700's".

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

Yup, there's totally not a record drought in the US mid-West, far
from the ocean; oh, and they totally don't get hit by ever more
powerful tornados . . .

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:03:24 -0800 (PST), calvin

Great, you keep "not alarming" over in the corner, the grown-ups
have work to do.

[calvin]

It's funny that you don't know when you've won.
Capitalism has been destroying the planet, right?
Well, capitalism will be completely gone within a
few more years, and the planet will be saved.
Rejoice.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>It's funny that you don't know when you've won.
>Capitalism has been destroying the planet, right?
>Well, capitalism will be completely gone within a
>few more years, and the planet will be saved.
>Rejoice.

Capitalism gone in a few more years? Even China is largely run on
Capitalism these days.

[moviePig]

Right, it *is* too big a question for the likes of you and me. So, we
parrot our experts. But, ideally, we also notice how hard we have to
work to choose them...

[BTR1701]

In article
<8d15cb0b-013a-427f...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

More like eons.

[BTR1701]

In article
<eb7b6699-294d-4402...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Well, certainly not a hurricane like the one that recently hit the East
Coast, since that's happened countless times before, and many were well
before there were even any people on earth, let alone man-made
greenhouse gases. Yet that hurricane is being hailed as proof-positive
that we have global warming.

They've cleverly framed the issue such that no matter what the weather
does these days, it's evidence of global warming.

When we have lots of hurricanes during a season, well, that proves
global warming. When there's fewer than normal hurricanes, also proof of
global warming. Same with tornadoes. And temperature? Well, a warm
winter is obvious proof of global warming and strangely enough, so is a
cold winter. Summer is no different. Hotter than normal summer? Proof of
global warming. Mild or cool summer? Proof of global warming. Same with
melting ice caps. North pole ice recedes? Proof of global warming. South
pole ice increases? Proof of global warming.

It's devious, I'll give them that much.

[BTR1701]

In article <p516c8pk0tcg7cllp...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:03:24 -0800 (PST), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 7, 10:41�pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 9:45�pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Dec 7, 9:38�pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:52:49 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> > > >In article <pqb3c8d7ard5tjm8ig8qpf4f0nulub3...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:48:35 -0800 (PST), calvin
> >> > > >> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> > > >> >Following the news part of this link is documentation
> >> > > >> >for the evicted heretic's views:
> >> > > >> >http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk
> >> > > >> >http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monck
> >> > > >> >to...
> >> > > >> >d-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted

> >> > > >> >-from-t��he-

> >> > > >> >hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials
> >>
> >> > > >> � With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
> >> > > >> nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.
> >>
> >> > > >Oh, you mean the weather?
> >>
> >> > > � No, the climate. �weather:days::climate:years
> >>
> >> > No. �weather years, climate decades.
> >>
> >> What meteorological manifestations would trigger *your* personal alarm
> >> here?
> >
> >That's too big a question, so I'll give an example of illogic
> >that does not trigger my alarm. That is when some alarmist
> >says something like, "in the last ten year period we have
> >seen a level of so-and-so that has not been seen over a
> >ten year period since the late 1700's".
>
> Great, you keep "not alarming" over in the corner, the grown-ups
> have work to do.

Just keep your hand out of my pocket while you do it.

[BTR1701]

In article <l716c8plsogi1v24h...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

No, they 'totally' don't. The frequency and intensity of tornadoes
varies and the current level is not unique. And neither is the drought a
record. There have been longer and more severe droughts in North
America's history.

[trotsky]

Yeah, that's a unit of measurement.

[trotsky]

On 12/8/12 10:34 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <eb7b6699-294d-4402...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 7, 9:45 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 9:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:52:49 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <pqb3c8d7ard5tjm8ig8qpf4f0nulub3...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:48:35 -0800 (PST), calvin
>>>>>> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Following the news part of this link is documentation
>>>>>>> for the evicted heretic's views:
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk
>>>>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckto.
>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>> d-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-fr

>>>>>>> om-t虐e-

>>>>>>> hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials
>>>
>>>>>> With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
>>>>>> nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.
>>>
>>>>> Oh, you mean the weather?
>>>
>>>> No, the climate. weather:days::climate:years
>>>
>>> No. weather years, climate decades.
>>
>> What meteorological manifestations would trigger *your* personal alarm
>> here?
>
> Well, certainly not a hurricane like the one that recently hit the East
> Coast, since that's happened countless times before,

Cite?

[Scott]

On 07-Dec-12 22:57, Red Cloud wrote:
> On Dec 7, 6:52 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <pqb3c8d7ard5tjm8ig8qpf4f0nulub3...@4ax.com>,
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:48:35 -0800 (PST), calvin
>>> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Following the news part of this link is documentation
>>>> for the evicted heretic's views:
>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk
>>

>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckto....

>>>> d-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-from-the-
>>>> hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials
>>
>>> With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
>>> nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.
>>
>> Oh, you mean the weather?
>
> The effects of Climate Change won't happen until "The Day After
> Tomorrow" comes as reality. So these anti-GW goons are still waiting
> for Hollyweird fantasy film to become a real life experience.
>
> Slow process of climate change on global scale is boring. Ok so we
> need climate change in nanosecond scale and that's what makes
> excitement and entertainment. In all, GW topic is kind of
> entertainment like UFO stuff. It even got
> into political topic. Hey the cold war topic is over.
>
>
>
>

Sometimes, this guy makes more sense than some of the other folk
around here. Proof enough for me that the end is nigh (or should
be...).

As for who the other folk are, that is an exercise left for the
reader.

[moviePig]

On Dec 8, 11:34 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article

> <eb7b6699-294d-4402-a9b8-b610ac713...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

It's the "devious them" aspect of your (and Calvin's) stance that's
troubling here, i.e., that there's some truly massively effective
perversion of the scientific community ...motivated solely to defeat
the humanitarian goodwill of the fossil-fuel industry.

Fwiw, I did Google 'south pole ice increases', and found this brief
and interesting article (whose ending even entertains with an ironic
note re ozone destruction):

http://tinyurl.com/26xwr9e

( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/
)

Meanwhile, my question remains: What meteorological manifestations
would trigger *your* personal alarm re global warming?

[calvin]

On Dec 8, 2:20 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> It's the "devious them" aspect of your (and Calvin's) stance that's
> troubling here, i.e., that there's some truly massively effective
> perversion of the scientific community ...motivated solely to defeat
> the humanitarian goodwill of the fossil-fuel industry.

> ...

It doesn't matter whether the fossil-fuel industry has
'humanitarian goodwill' or not. What matters is the
epochal good that the fossil-fuel industry has bestowed
upon all of humanity, and until something more effective
comes along we should be very careful not to punish it
out of existence.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 2:20:23 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> It's the "devious them" aspect of your (and Calvin's) stance that's
> troubling here, i.e., that there's some truly massively effective
> perversion of the scientific community ...motivated solely to defeat
> the humanitarian goodwill of the fossil-fuel industry.
>

You're cutting the differences too sharply. It's naive to think that scientists don't have agendas, either scientific, political or social. Your taking the "sole motivation" as gospel is a bit misleading. Scientists -- in groups -- have become the sayers of doom for some time. In some cases they've been right and other cases not so right. To me, the whole global warning script sounds like Jack Hawkins in "The Pharaoh" where he's standing on the stone steps explaining that the rain of frogs or blood rain or whatever is based on human behavior. Yes, the weather has changed. The weather always changes. That the notion that human behavior changed it is where it gets Biblical for me and that's where they lose me.

[Obveeus]

"BTR1701" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> What meteorological manifestations would trigger *your* personal alarm
>> here?
>
> Well, certainly not a hurricane like the one that recently hit the East
> Coast, since that's happened countless times before, and many were well
> before there were even any people on earth, let alone man-made
> greenhouse gases. Yet that hurricane is being hailed as proof-positive
> that we have global warming.

Wait...are you sure? Last I heard, the USA had just gone through 16
straight months of above average temeratures, but then Hurricane Sandy came
along and cooled off October...and the global warming naysayers used that
hurricane as proof-positive that global warming *wasn't* occuring.

[BTR1701]

It is, you monstrous sore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon_(geology)

Crack a book sometime.

[Tom]

>    (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming...

> )
>
> Meanwhile, my question remains:  What meteorological manifestations
> would trigger *your* personal alarm re global warming?
>
> --
>
> - - - - - - - -
>   YOUR taste at work...
>    http://www.moviepig.com

Don't hold your breath... a logical answer will not be forthcoming. He
won't/can't answer my similar question.

Tom

[trotsky]

I can see why you're a failed attorney. A decade is 10 years--how long
are you saying an eon is?

Game, set, match.

[moviePig]

Sure, scientists are human, too. And, as always, they're again the
imperfect lenses through which we scan our horizon for incoming
peril. I.e., we're guessing about their guessing. But re global
warming, the various hysterical bandwagons that admittedly can befall
the scientific community seem to me less in clear-cut evidence than
does the industry-funded pooh-poohing. And that judgment -- the only
one I can really make -- is one I'll stick with even if tomorrow all
the warming is somehow conclusively disproved.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 11:15:20 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> Sure, scientists are human, too. And, as always, they're again the
> imperfect lenses through which we scan our horizon for incoming
> peril. I.e., we're guessing about their guessing. But re global
> warming, the various hysterical bandwagons that admittedly can befall
> the scientific community seem to me less in clear-cut evidence than
> does the industry-funded pooh-poohing. And that judgment -- the only
> one I can really make -- is one I'll stick with even if tomorrow all
> the warming is somehow conclusively disproved.
>

You don't need a weatherman and all that. Aren't you measuring the quality of the assertion by the banality of the rebuttal? I'm playing devil's advocate here because I haven't sorted all of this out and the average schmo on the street can't. Working for Big Pharma I've seen how cold hard facts can be a scam so my faith in science isn't what it once was. There was similar weather patterns in the 12th or 14th century or something like that when there were only 5 million people on the earth and they weren't driving Caddies and burning the rain forests. Again, my problem isn't with the alleged problem, it's with the supposed cause and causality is always a bitch.

[BTR1701]

In article <ka08kr$je2$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

You might want to make that point to the libs over at the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/opinion/kristof-a-failed-experiment.htm
l?ref=nicholasdkristof

Just one example of the chorus of AGW zealots who have seized upon the
hurricane as proof we're not doing enough about this 'problem'.

I particularly like Kristof, though, because he's not just content to
politicize the disaster to push his agenda, he also takes the
opportunity to bemoan how 'unfair' it is that some people (the rich)
were able to mitigate the effects of the storm by having their own
generators. For Kristof, the idea that some were able to spare
themselves the pain of living without power is a travesty that cannot be
tolerated. We need to tax, tax, and tax some more until we can be sure
that any future tumult will affect everyone equally.

[BTR1701]

In article <slrnkc7ugk....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <ka08kr$je2$1...@dont-email.me>

> No one who is 28 years old or younger has ever lived in a month with
> below average world temperature. 28 straight years of above average
> temperatures.

Depends on where you put the benchmark for 'average'.

[calvin]

On Dec 8, 11:15 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Sure, scientists are human, too.  And, as always, they're again the
> imperfect lenses through which we scan our horizon for incoming
> peril.  I.e., we're guessing about their guessing.  But re global
> warming, the various hysterical bandwagons that admittedly can befall
> the scientific community seem to me less in clear-cut evidence than
> does the industry-funded pooh-poohing.  And that judgment -- the only
> one I can really make -- is one I'll stick with even if tomorrow all
> the warming is somehow conclusively disproved.

"industry-funded pooh-poohing" - a convenient assumption that,
even if true to some extent, does not account for all of the
pooh-poohing. Also, you continue to ignore the fact that global
warming alarmism benefits one political party only, and the fact
that alarmism is taught in schools at all levels, and the fact that
one political side is so strident that it demonizes 'deniers' and
in some cases punishes them. Were the shoe on the other foot
I think all of these things would matter to your guessing decision
as much as "industry-funded pooh-poohing" now does.

[William Hale]

In article <d38bdafc-33dd-4cf7...@googlegroups.com>,

Don't the layman explanations about global warning seem reasonable to
you that scientists could determine that burning fossil fuel is leading
to global warming?

I am taking the free online course "Introduction to Astronomy" by Ronen
Plesser at the url: https://www.coursera.org/course/introastro. In week
3 lecture 6, he discusses how to calculate the temperature on the
surface of earth. He first does a calculation where only the sun and the
earth are considered, leaving out the effects of earth's atmosphere, and
arrives at a figure which is too low (but in the ball park). He then
takes into account earth's atmosphere (greenhouse effect) and arrives at
a better figure (but still too low since he is only doing rough
estimates). You don't think scientists with more exact data measurements
and doing the calculations in more detail and with computers, cannot
determine the effects of burning fossil fuel on heating the earth?

[moviePig]

And any complex system is subject to the Law Of Unintended
Consequences. But my job isn't to decide whether AGW is real.
Rather, I can only (help) *choose* the deciders. And, in that choice,
I do have to consider the banality -- or, more properly, the
venality-- of the rebuttal (by Big Oil). It's probably the only thing
I can do better than guess at.

[moviePig]

Okay, list *your* preferred beacon(s) of reason. (Rush Limbaugh is a
non-starter...)

[Jim T.]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:38:41 -0800 (PST), wlah...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, December 8, 2012 2:20:23 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>
>> It's the "devious them" aspect of your (and Calvin's) stance that's
>> troubling here, i.e., that there's some truly massively effective
>> perversion of the scientific community ...motivated solely to defeat
>> the humanitarian goodwill of the fossil-fuel industry.
>>
> You're cutting the differences too sharply. It's naive to think that scientists don't have agendas,
> either scientific, political or social. Your taking the "sole motivation" as gospel is a bit misleading. Scientists
> -- in groups -- have become the sayers of doom for some time.

This time though it's not just groups of scientists, it's virtually
*all* of them.

[calvin]

I just did.

[moviePig]

Pithy, no doubt. But, expecting a name or link or two, I find it
incomprehensible.

[calvin]

You said, I believe, that we are just guessing which side to take,
and you go with the alarmists because of 'industry-funded
pooh-poohing'. I gave the things that make me lean toward the
deniers in the paragraph quoted above.

As for the truth of the matter, we each could give dozens of URLs
which support our preferred leanings, but all we're really doing is
guessing. As for Rush Limbaugh, I have said several times over
the years that he is poor in science. He reinforces that view of
him regularly. But if you're going to tell me about non-starters, I
could say that Bill Maher is a non-starter too.

[moviePig]

On Dec 9, 10:49 am, Jim T. <x...@y.z> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:38:41 -0800 (PST), wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Saturday, December 8, 2012 2:20:23 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>
> >> It's the "devious them" aspect of your (and Calvin's) stance that's
> >> troubling here, i.e., that there's some truly massively effective
> >> perversion of the scientific community ...motivated solely to defeat
> >> the humanitarian goodwill of the fossil-fuel industry.
>
> > You're cutting the differences too sharply. It's naive to think that scientists don't have agendas,
> > either scientific, political or social. Your taking the "sole motivation" as gospel is a bit misleading. Scientists
> > -- in groups -- have become the sayers of doom for some time.
>
> This time though it's not just groups of scientists, it's virtually
> *all* of them.

> ...

...which, if we discard massive-conspiracy theories as impractical,
leaves only two refutations, afaics. Either 1) scientists at large
are subconsciously biased to join a "winning" side, or 2) nature is
putting up one hell of a bait-and-switch. Neither of those deceptions
is without precedent, of course. But they grow less likely with
time ...particularly alongside deceptions by folks with a financial
interest in preserving the status quo.

[moviePig]

Has Maher opined on AGW? I didn't know... Meanwhile, nothing you
listed goes to credibility, (I can't buy that the Liberals drummed up
AGW as an anti-Conservative boogeyman.)

[calvin]

But what Jim T. said is not true, it's not virtually all of them.
More and more scientists have been questioning the
alarmism for years.

[Jim T.]

No, the exact opposite is true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

[calvin]

Anti-capitalism, or anti-free enterprise. If you don't see this
in the left, then that's your myopia. Somehow you claim 20/20
vision concerning evil industry, though.

What you named doesn't go to credibility.
Again and again you demonstrate that you have no
capacity for 'equal but opposite' imagination.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>Anti-capitalism, or anti-free enterprise. If you don't see this
>in the left, then that's your myopia. Somehow you claim 20/20
>vision concerning evil industry, though.

How is it that solar energy, wind energy, clean air energy, etc... are not
'industry'?

[calvin]

They have to be government subsidized to make money,
which isn't the free market and does nothing for the
economy.

[moviePig]

What I see is the Left adopting AGW and other pro-science stances (see
''Darwinism'), and the Right adopting anti-science ones (see
'creationism'). Of course, in the final analysis, if it doesn't kill
us, the Truth may turn out to have eluded both approaches. But, while
the search continues, science seems the only horse in the race.

(Btw: can you find a Liberal who declares himself 'anti-capitalist',
or 'anti-free enterprise'? If not, then how do you distinguish those
labels from, say, 'traitor' or 'witch'?)

[moviePig]

Has oil never been subsidized?

[calvin]

Creationism is not a feature of conservatism.
Both the left and the right have their loonies.
I'll let your other points go unanswered.

[calvin]

On Dec 9, 12:29 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 12:06 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 11:47 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > >Anti-capitalism, or anti-free enterprise.  If you don't see this
> > > >in the left, then that's your myopia.  Somehow you claim 20/20
> > > >vision concerning evil industry, though.
>
> > > How is it that solar energy, wind energy, clean air energy, etc... are not
> > > 'industry'?
>
> > They have to be government subsidized to make money,
> > which isn't the free market and does nothing for the
> > economy.
>
> Has oil never been subsidized?

I'm sure, in exploration and drilling, but once the oil is
found and flowing it doesn't need the government to
keep it going.

[calvin]

On Dec 9, 12:28 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> ... Of course, in the final analysis, if it doesn't kill us,
> the Truth may turn out to have eluded both approaches. ...

For the final analysis, let's turn to Kubrick. At the
dawn of man, instinct began to give way to reason.
Now, in our age, reason is beginning to give way to
intuition. The left feels the lightness of intuition, and
the right feels the gravity of reason.

But intuition can't reject reason anymore than reason
could reject instinct. Each step has to encompass
and then transcend the previous. The problem is that
the left is too eager to dispense with reason and seek
its higher consciousness through guesses, hunches,
and feelings not grounded in reason. The result is often
chaos, anarchy, or disregard for quality-of-life through
revolution. We can't have a true transition to intuition
until the left stops being unreasonable in its approaches.

It's sort of analogous to advances in theories of physics.
Einstein's relativity did not ignore or contradict Newtonian
physics. It included it and then went beyond it. Similarly
new theories do not contradict relativity. They expand on it.
Unfortunately the left's faulty insistence on ungrounded
intuition is carrying us headlong toward disaster, no matter
what is the ultimate truth about global warming.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:7555331a-edb5-4469...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Translation: yes, it has always been subsidized...even now that it is
highly profitable.

[Obveeus]

I'll take a government that throws away money developing future energy means
over one that throws away a much greater number of trillions of dollars on
military spending...which also does nothing for the economy. Bombs at
$80,000 a piece or planes at $150,000,000 a piece or whatever 'technology'
that just gets thrown away year after year after year as practice under the
belief that the spending provides some longer term benefit.

[calvin]

That's a false dichotomy. You brought up energy alternatives
to fossil fuels, and now you're switching to defense spending
vs. energy alternatives.

A holdover from my years as a liberal is my view similar to
yours on defense spending, which has been an enormous
waste for decades. The one thing I disagreed with Romney's
campaign about was his promise to build more ships and
submarines, that we don't need.

But the proper dichotomy is defense spending vs. entitlement
spending. I'm happy with drastically cutting both, but certainly
don't want to see defense spending alone cut. At least that
money is spent on people working for a living and advancing
technology, which is much better in my view than dumping
money on loafers and moochers, with nothing to show for it
but votes for Democrats.

Neither defense nor entitlement spending should be eliminated,
but cut them both equally, say 50%, and I'm all for it.

[moviePig]

Nor is 'anti-free enterprise' a feature of liberalism ...the
difference being that liberals *say* as much, whereas the
conservatives welcome loonies onto their ark, two by two.

> I'll let your other points go unanswered.

Too bad. But at least you seem to recognize they're points...

[moviePig]

So, you think that, on its individual merits, each should be
cut ...but that neither should be cut separately, because one's "mine"
and one's "yours"? What are you, five?

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>On Dec 9, 3:38 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >They have to be government subsidized to make money,
>> >which isn't the free market and does nothing for the
>> >economy.
>>
>> I'll take a government that throws away money developing future energy
>> means
>> over one that throws away a much greater number of trillions of dollars
>> on
>> military spending...which also does nothing for the economy. Bombs at
>> $80,000 a piece or planes at $150,000,000 a piece or whatever
>> 'technology'
>> that just gets thrown away year after year after year as practice under
>> the
>> belief that the spending provides some longer term benefit.
>
>That's a false dichotomy. You brought up energy alternatives
>to fossil fuels, and now you're switching to defense spending
>vs. energy alternatives.

You brought up the subject of industry that has to be subsidized by the
government to make money. So, I continued with a discussion of the #1
government subsidized industry.

>But the proper dichotomy is defense spending vs. entitlement
>spending. I'm happy with drastically cutting both, but certainly
>don't want to see defense spending alone cut.

If both are complete wastes of money, both should be cut. Why afford more
protection to the one that kills people than the one that saves people?

> At least that
>money is spent on people working for a living and advancing
>technology,

Now, you see, that is exactly why I made the comparison between money spend
developing bigger/better weapons and money spent developing alternative
energy sources. Both are money soent on people working for a living and
advancing technology. Between the two, the one that is most likely to
benefit mankind's longterm survival is the investment in alternative energy
rather than the investment in military machines.

>which is much better in my view than dumping
>money on loafers and moochers, with nothing to show for it
>but votes for Democrats.

I don't agree with your claim that investment in alternative energy creates
more votes for democrats*. Never the less, if the investment is 90% money
tossed into dead end technology, it is still better than the same money
thrown into a war-mongering hole in the ground. If the government is going
to waste money on useless technology, at least lets make it something that
is less likely to destroy the planet in the process.

*side note: if you meant to claim that money spent on entitlements is money
wasted on loafers and moochers that will vote Democrat, you will need to
explain why

A. the oldest part of the population (huge entitlements) vote more
Republican.
B. the least educated part of the population votes more Republican.
C. the least healthy (huge entitlements) part of the population votes more
Republican.
D. the least wealthy part of the population votes more Republican.

>Neither defense nor entitlement spending should be eliminated,
>but cut them both equally, say 50%, and I'm all for it.

Sure...but in the meantime, raise the tax rates back up to where they were
when this country was much more prosperous and much less reliant upon living
(stealing) off of future generations' income.

[calvin]

While the liberal loonies throw molotov cocktails into
the ark, dooming everybody, themselves included.

[calvin]

On Dec 9, 4:29 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with your claim that investment in alternative energy creates
> more votes for democrats*.

That's not what I said. Can't you read? That's as
bad as 'Tom's lack of comprehension.

[trotsky]

Excellent take on the Mayan prophecy, and just as credible. Do you say
this shit because you're starved for attention, or what?

[calvin]

You misspelled 'fair'.

[Obveeus]

Note the asterisk in what you quoted (which I needed because you jumped
subject matter) and take you own advise about learning to read.

[calvin]

On Dec 9, 4:24 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> ..., whereas the

> conservatives welcome loonies onto their ark, two by two.

> ...

Re conservatives welcoming loonies, see the movie I
recommended today for the left's comments about their
loonies.

[Tom]

That's completely wrong. Fewer and fewer scientists are questioning
climate change/global warming.

James Lawrence Powell is a geologist, science-writer, and former
professor, via DeSmogBlog. Powell reviewed 13,950 peer-reviewed
scientific articles published between January 1991 and November 9,
2012 that mentioned "global warming" or "global climate change." The
grand total of articles that questioned global warming or whether
rising emissions are the cause: 24. That's 0.17 percent of all the
literature on the topic.

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

Tom

[Tom]

Any mention of cutting off the current flow of taxpayer money to oil
companies results in conservative wailing and gnashing of teeth.

'calvin' is being disingenuous in his derision of alternative energy
sources and government subsidies. Throw a dart in the general
direction of any new technology and it's a safe bet you'll hit one
that received subsidies to get up and running. I'd wager 'calvin' has
worked for employers that have benefited from government subsidies,
thus making him a beneficiary of said subsidies.

It makes me wonder why conservatives love to subsidize GE's military
operations but whine like bitches about its wind turbine business
being subsidized.

'calvin' never fails to give a simple answer to a complex question.

Tom

[calvin]

Since you knew what I said, why did
you first pretend not to know and
then correct yourself? Yes, I jumped at
the false first interpretation in anger.
Who wouldn't?

[Tom]

Fuck you 'calvin.'

You couldn't write a cogent sentence if you pathetic, miserable life
depended on it.

Tom

[moviePig]

Well, it's edifying to see that your governmental principles amount to
daycare that no one should wish on his kid...

[BTR1701]

And it ought not to be. I don't believing in vilifying oil companies for
making profits off their product, but neither do I believe it's appropriate
to spend tax money to subsidize a wildly profitable industry.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Dec 9, 4:48 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >On Dec 9, 4:29 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> I don't agree with your claim that investment in alternative energy
>> >> creates
>> >> more votes for democrats*.
>>
>> >That's not what I said. Can't you read? That's as
>> >bad as 'Tom's lack of comprehension.
>>
>> Note the asterisk in what you quoted (which I needed because you jumped
>> subject matter) and take you own advise about learning to read.
>
>Since you knew what I said, why did
>you first pretend not to know and
>then correct yourself?

I could only guess at what you meant since you were jumping/changing the
topic. As a result, I responded to both alternatives of to your meaning.

> Yes, I jumped at the false first interpretation in anger.
>Who wouldn't?

Someone that read the whole post? ...but even someone only reading half of
it need not 'respond in anger'.

[Obveeus]

"BTR1701" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message

>> On Dec 9, 12:29 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Has oil never been subsidized?
>>>
>>> I'm sure, in exploration and drilling, but once the oil is
>>> found and flowing it doesn't need the government to
>>> keep it going.
>>
>> Translation: yes, it has always been subsidized...even now that it is
>> highly profitable.
>
> And it ought not to be. I don't believing in vilifying oil companies for
> making profits off their product, but neither do I believe it's
> appropriate
> to spend tax money to subsidize a wildly profitable industry.

Agreed...and I'd like to add in that it very much annoys me that so much
*public* land is leased off for next to nothing to further support the huge
profits of the oil industry.

[calvin]

So even though I agreed with you and yours about defense
cuts, you couldn't be gracious enough to accept that, but
instead had to vilify me for not agreeing that *only* defense
should be cut.

[William Hale]

In article
<ae23cfac-b755-4877...@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

I think moviePig is saying that the cuts should be based on merit rather
than on your share being equal to my share.

[calvin]

On Dec 9, 6:46 pm, William Hale <bill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ae23cfac-b755-4877-b9c4-9975546f1...@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

Your and his assumptions are false. It has
nothing to do with 'yours' and 'mine'. But
even if it did, I would still be right. Negotiations
between left and right should involve give and
take on both sides, and all of the political debate
around here has been about two sides, left and
right. This little experience has taught me that
I should think twice before making another
unilateral concession. I'm dealing with unfair
and unprincipled people who grasp and claw
at whatever one might offer, but are prepared to
offer nothing themselves.

[Invid Fan]

In article
<4e9935e0-8cbf-45a2...@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

> On Dec 9, 11:26 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> > Has Maher opined on AGW?  I didn't know...  Meanwhile, nothing you
> > listed goes to credibility,  (I can't buy that the Liberals drummed up
> > AGW as an anti-Conservative boogeyman.)
>

> Anti-capitalism, or anti-free enterprise. If you don't see this
> in the left, then that's your myopia. Somehow you claim 20/20
> vision concerning evil industry, though.
>

My question, for those who rail against the idea of global warming, is
if they'd be feeling the same way if the exact same quality of
scientific "evidence" had shown that stopping carbon emissions were
causing the problems. If, in other words, if their main problem was
just that people they considered idiots were by chance right on one
point even if they're still wrong on the others.

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

[calvin]

What I said was perfectly straightforward, as anyone can
see. I was pointing out that you had changed the topic,
and I was putting the proper dichotomy forward.

And to think, I was all set to see 'Life of Pi' this afternoon,
but instead wasted the day trying to communicate with
you people. And, yes, I am an idiot for getting sucked into
it again and again, only to have it always end this way.
One simply cannot argue with half a dozen liberals at once.
The only way to stop the grief is to cut if off cold turkey.

[Tom]

That might hurt...

Tom

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>On Dec 9, 6:23 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, I jumped at the false first interpretation in anger.
>> >Who wouldn't?
>>
>> Someone that read the whole post? ...but even someone
>> only reading half of it need not 'respond in anger'.
>
>What I said was perfectly straightforward, as anyone can
>see. I was pointing out that you had changed the topic,
>and I was putting the proper dichotomy forward.

By putting the proper dichotomy forward', I assume you actually mean
'changing the subject to what you wanted to compare.

>And to think, I was all set to see 'Life of Pi' this afternoon,
>but instead wasted the day trying to communicate with
>you people. And, yes, I am an idiot for getting sucked into
>it again and again, only to have it always end this way.
>One simply cannot argue with half a dozen liberals at once.
>The only way to stop the grief is to cut if off cold turkey.

I assume this is a dichotomy where you are suggesting that the kid on the
boat had less trouble communicating? My only reply would be that the kid's
success was directly related to him not declaring himself to be cat chow.

[moviePig]

Just as you have with "free markets", you have this notion of
unfettered 'compromise' as an indicator of wisdom ...when, in fact,
it's no more than the residue of a power standoff. But this is
Usenet, where nobody gives a shit about your "concessions" ...or
possibly even mine. If entitlements outstrip practicality, they
should be cut. If defense costs outstrips utility, they should be
cut. End of stories.

[calvin]

On Dec 9, 10:16 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> ...  But this is

> Usenet, where nobody gives a shit about your "concessions" ...or

> possibly even mine. ...

You arrogant and obscene bastard, you don't know
what everybody cares about, and you don't specify the
attributes of Usenet.

[Invid Fan]

In article
<d32d5588-2ed3-4f9e...@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

He didn't specify it, he described it. Nothing on Usenet matters or is
taken seriously. Or, more to the point, those for whom it does matter
are constantly frustrated by the vast majority for whom it doesn't (and
versa visa)

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:37:17 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <l716c8plsogi1v24h...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 22:46:47 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Dec 7, 9:45 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >>> On Dec 7, 9:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > No, the climate. weather:days::climate:years
>> >>>
>> >>> No. weather years, climate decades.
>> >>
>> >>What meteorological manifestations would trigger *your* personal alarm
>> >>here?
>> >
>> >I don't plan to raise a call for worry until I own beachfront property.
>> >...and no, I don't plan on moving to the ocean. I'm waiting for the ocean
>> >to come to me.
>> >
>>
>> Yup, there's totally not a record drought in the US mid-West, far
>> from the ocean; oh, and they totally don't get hit by ever more
>> powerful tornados . . .
>
>No, they 'totally' don't. The frequency and intensity of tornadoes
>varies and the current level is not unique. And neither is the drought a
>record. There have been longer and more severe droughts in North
>America's history.

Right, and it's happened all at once. Oh, wait . . .



--

- ReFlex76

- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:35:36 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <p516c8pk0tcg7cllp...@4ax.com>,

> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:03:24 -0800 (PST), calvin
>> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>>
>> >On Dec 7, 10:41 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 7, 9:45 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Dec 7, 9:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>

>> >> > > On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:52:49 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >In article <pqb3c8d7ard5tjm8ig8qpf4f0nulub3...@4ax.com>,

>> >> > > > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:

>> >> > > >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:48:35 -0800 (PST), calvin
>> >> > > >> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >Following the news part of this link is documentation
>> >> > > >> >for the evicted heretic's views:
>> >> > > >> >http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk
>> >> > > >> >http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monck
>> >> > > >> >to...
>> >> > > >> >d-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted
>> >> > > >> >-from-t­­he-
>> >> > > >> >hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials
>> >>
>> >> > > >>   With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
>> >> > > >> nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.
>> >>
>> >> > > >Oh, you mean the weather?

>> >>
>> >> > >   No, the climate.  weather:days::climate:years
>> >>
>> >> > No.  weather years, climate decades.
>> >>
>> >> What meteorological manifestations would trigger *your* personal alarm
>> >> here?
>> >

>> >That's too big a question, so I'll give an example of illogic
>> >that does not trigger my alarm. That is when some alarmist
>> >says something like, "in the last ten year period we have
>> >seen a level of so-and-so that has not been seen over a
>> >ten year period since the late 1700's".
>>
>> Great, you keep "not alarming" over in the corner, the grown-ups
>> have work to do.
>
>Just keep your hand out of my pocket while you do it.

Oooh, I just realized; while the rest of us pay our taxes, you'll
be mooching.

[BTR1701]

In article <f7uac81tug1mv6858...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:37:17 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <l716c8plsogi1v24h...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 22:46:47 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Dec 7, 9:45 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> >>> On Dec 7, 9:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > No, the climate. weather:days::climate:years
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No. weather years, climate decades.
> >> >>
> >> >>What meteorological manifestations would trigger *your* personal alarm
> >> >>here?
> >> >
> >> >I don't plan to raise a call for worry until I own beachfront property.
> >> >...and no, I don't plan on moving to the ocean. I'm waiting for the
> >> >ocean
> >> >to come to me.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yup, there's totally not a record drought in the US mid-West, far
> >> from the ocean; oh, and they totally don't get hit by ever more
> >> powerful tornados . . .
> >
> >No, they 'totally' don't. The frequency and intensity of tornadoes
> >varies and the current level is not unique. And neither is the drought a
> >record. There have been longer and more severe droughts in North
> >America's history.
>
> Right

Huh? First you claim one thing and then you agree to the opposite?

> and it's happened all at once.

Yes, droughts and tornadoes have indeed happened concurrently.

[BTR1701]

In article <rouac81p5p8tekv4b...@4ax.com>,

If you want to define not paying for enviro-kook bullshit as mooching,
knock yourself out, chief.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:35:36 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <p516c8pk0tcg7cllp...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:03:24 -0800 (PST), calvin
>> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>>
>> >On Dec 7, 10:41 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 7, 9:45 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Dec 7, 9:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>

>> >> > > On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:52:49 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >In article <pqb3c8d7ard5tjm8ig8qpf4f0nulub3...@4ax.com>,

>> >> > > > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:

>> >> > > >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:48:35 -0800 (PST), calvin
>> >> > > >> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >Following the news part of this link is documentation
>> >> > > >> >for the evicted heretic's views:
>> >> > > >> >http://tinyurl.com/c42u4lk
>> >> > > >> >http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monck
>> >> > > >> >to...
>> >> > > >> >d-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted
>> >> > > >> >-from-t­­he-
>> >> > > >> >hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials
>> >>
>> >> > > >>   With the effects of Climate Change getting felt harder than ever,
>> >> > > >> nice to see people finally losing patience with delialists.
>> >>
>> >> > > >Oh, you mean the weather?
>> >>

>> >> > >   No, the climate.  weather:days::climate:years
>> >>
>> >> > No.  weather years, climate decades.
>> >>
>> >> What meteorological manifestations would trigger *your* personal alarm
>> >> here?
>> >

>> >That's too big a question, so I'll give an example of illogic
>> >that does not trigger my alarm. That is when some alarmist
>> >says something like, "in the last ten year period we have
>> >seen a level of so-and-so that has not been seen over a
>> >ten year period since the late 1700's".
>>

>> Great, you keep "not alarming" over in the corner, the grown-ups
>> have work to do.
>
>Just keep your hand out of my pocket while you do it.

If you can really move to another planet, go for it; meanwhile
Somalia's over thata way.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:26:38 -0800 (PST), moviePig
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>On Dec 9, 11:15 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 11:00 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 9, 10:57 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> > > On Dec 9, 10:29 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Dec 9, 1:01 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> > > > > On Dec 8, 11:15 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > Sure, scientists are human, too.  And, as always, they're again the
>> > > > > > imperfect lenses through which we scan our horizon for incoming
>> > > > > > peril.  I.e., we're guessing about their guessing.  But re global
>> > > > > > warming, the various hysterical bandwagons that admittedly can befall
>> > > > > > the scientific community seem to me less in clear-cut evidence than
>> > > > > > does the industry-funded pooh-poohing.  And that judgment -- the only
>> > > > > > one I can really make -- is one I'll stick with even if tomorrow all
>> > > > > > the warming is somehow conclusively disproved.
>>
>> > > > > "industry-funded pooh-poohing" - a convenient assumption that,
>> > > > > even if true to some extent, does not account for all of the
>> > > > > pooh-poohing.  Also, you continue to ignore the fact that global
>> > > > > warming alarmism benefits one political party only, and the fact
>> > > > > that alarmism is taught in schools at all levels, and the fact that
>> > > > > one political side is so strident that it demonizes 'deniers' and
>> > > > > in some cases punishes them.  Were the shoe on the other foot
>> > > > > I think all of these things would matter to your guessing decision
>> > > > > as much as "industry-funded pooh-poohing" now does.
>>
>> > > > Okay, list *your* preferred beacon(s) of reason.  (Rush Limbaugh is a
>> > > > non-starter...)
>>
>> > > I just did.
>>
>> > Pithy, no doubt.  But, expecting a name or link or two, I find it
>> > incomprehensible.
>>
>> You said, I believe, that we are just guessing which side to take,
>> and you go with the alarmists because of 'industry-funded
>> pooh-poohing'.  I gave the things that make me lean toward the
>> deniers in the paragraph quoted above.
>>
>> As for the truth of the matter, we each could give dozens of URLs
>> which support our preferred leanings, but all we're really doing is
>> guessing.  As for Rush Limbaugh, I have said several times over
>> the years that he is poor in science.  He reinforces that view of
>> him regularly.  But if you're going to tell me about non-starters, I
>> could say that Bill Maher is a non-starter too.

>
>Has Maher opined on AGW? I didn't know... Meanwhile, nothing you
>listed goes to credibility, (I can't buy that the Liberals drummed up
>AGW as an anti-Conservative boogeyman.)

I do love that Chris Hayes makes it a point to ban climate change
deniers from his show. He welcomes healthy debate, but sees climate
change as too serious a threat to allow denialist nonsense.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

Denying reality doesn't make it go away.

[trotsky]

I wish there was some way to tabulate how many times you've left the
group permanently.

[trotsky]

calvin, did you concoct this mean response because the door hit you in
the ass on the way out?

[trotsky]

Teabagger alert.

[Ralph]

On Dec 9, 5:02 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote about Calvin:

>
> You couldn't write a cogent sentence if you pathetic, miserable life
> depended on it.

Occasionally Calvin does something much worse, like lift from others
without proper credit. Below is an example:
>
> For the final analysis, let's turn to Kubrick. At the
> dawn of man, instinct began to give way to reason.
> Now, in our age, reason is beginning to give way to
> intuition. The left feels the lightness of intuition, and
> the right feels the gravity of reason.
>
> But intuition can't reject reason anymore than reason
> could reject instinct. Each step has to encompass
> and then transcend the previous. The problem is that
> the left is too eager to dispense with reason and seek
> its higher consciousness through guesses, hunches,
> and feelings not grounded in reason. The result is often
> chaos, anarchy, or disregard for quality-of-life through
> revolution. We can't have a true transition to intuition
> until the left stops being unreasonable in its approaches.
>
> It's sort of analogous to advances in theories of physics.
> Einstein's relativity did not ignore or contradict Newtonian
> physics. It included it and then went beyond it. Similarly
> new theories do not contradict relativity. They expand on it.
> Unfortunately the left's faulty insistence on ungrounded
> intuition is carrying us headlong toward disaster, no matter
> what is the ultimate truth about global warming.

The syntax doesn’t read like Calvin; instead, it has that suspicious
smell of Mark Steyn’s poop de jour over at the National Review.

[calvin]

Thanks for the compliment. Now find what I 'lifted' it
from, or shut up.