Climate-Change Skeptics
John Manning
The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
... FACT:
U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ci�ncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Acad�mie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar�s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
l�Acad�mie des Sciences et Techniques du S�n�gal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Science
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
... FRAUD:
American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen�s Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
- - - "FRAUD" organizations are petitioners v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
- - - "FACT" organizations come from "Is There a Scientific Consensus on
Global Warming?" at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Antares 531
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>
>The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
>... FACT:
>
(snip)
Do any of those groups offer an explanation as to why this current, on
-going interglacial warm period started about 12,000 years ago? Humans
building campfires???
Gordon
John Manning
See: �The Medieval Warming Crock�:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
Antares 531
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>Antares 531 wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
>>> ... FACT:
>>>
>> (snip)
>> Do any of those groups offer an explanation as to why this current, on
>> -going interglacial warm period started about 12,000 years ago? Humans
>> building campfires???
>>
>> Gordon
>
>
>See: �The Medieval Warming Crock�:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
>
John, I'm quite sure there has been a significant up-tick in global
temperature readings over the past century or so. There have been many
such up-ticks through the past few millennia, and this one doesn't
seem to be significantly different from all those before it.
The big question is, what caused the ice caps that once extended down
to about the 45� latitude to receded? What caused the ice that once
filled the Great Lakes to melt? These and other such events started
about 12,000 years ago, long before any influence by humans.
Gordon
default
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>There have been many
>such up-ticks through the past few millennia, and this one doesn't
>seem to be significantly different from all those before it.
What you are calling an up tick is an unprecedented exponential curve
anchored in the Industrial revolution - which you would see if you
cared to look at the data.
--
John Manning
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:11:24 -0300, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
>>>> ... FACT:
>>>>
>>> (snip)
>>> Do any of those groups offer an explanation as to why this current, on
>>> -going interglacial warm period started about 12,000 years ago? Humans
>>> building campfires???
>>>
>>> Gordon
>>
>>
> John, I'm quite sure there has been a significant up-tick in global
> temperature readings over the past century or so. There have been many
> such up-ticks through the past few millennia, and this one doesn't
> seem to be significantly different from all those before it.
>
The vast body of evidence for current AGW gathered over decades and
published in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers from
legitimately credentialed professional scientists from all over the
world overwhelming speaks for itself.
> The big question is, what caused the ice caps that once extended down
> to about the 45� latitude to receded? What caused the ice that once
> filled the Great Lakes to melt? These and other such events started
> about 12,000 years ago, long before any influence by humans.
>
> Gordon
This clip answers those questions: The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
Larry
news:m2t4p5h8mk7hn0uhg...@4ax.com:
> What caused the ice that once
> filled the Great Lakes to melt?
Did you guys see the pictures of Lake Erie freezing over this year?
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
Larry
Olrik
>
>
> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
> ... FACT:
You're trying too much.
I could list all the xian churches in america saying that 'god' exists
or that 'jesus' existed.
Or I could, given some time, publish the names of all the people who
believe in 'god'. Billions of them. And yet, you don't believe in 'god'
yourself...
Being a skeptic is a must. Climate change is too complex to lump it in
what is basically a new religion.
Olrik
Joe Bruno
> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
> ... FACT:
>
> U.S. Agency for International Development
> United States Department of Agriculture
> National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> United States Department of Defense
> United States Department of Energy
> National Institutes of Health
> United States Department of State
> United States Department of Transportation
> U.S. Geological Survey
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
> University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
> National Center for Atmospheric Research
> National Aeronautics & Space Administration
> National Science Foundation
> Smithsonian Institution
> International Arctic Science Committee
> Arctic Council
> African Academy of Sciences
> Australian Academy of Sciences
> Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
> Cameroon Academy of Sciences
> Royal Society of Canada
> Caribbean Academy of Sciences
> Chinese Academy of Sciences
> Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
> Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
> Indonesian Academy of Sciences
> Royal Irish Academy
> Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
> Indian National Science Academy
> Science Council of Japan
> Kenya National Academy of Sciences
> Academy of Sciences Malaysia
> Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
> Nigerian Academy of Sciences
> Royal Society of New Zealand
> Polish Academy of Sciences
> Russian Academy of Sciences
> Great Northern Project Development
> Rosebud Mining
> Massey Energy
> Alpha Natural Resources
> Southeastern Legal Foundation
> Georgia Agribusiness Council
> Georgia Motor Trucking Association
> Corn Refiners Association
> National Association of Home Builders
> National Oilseed Processors Association
> National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
> Western States Petroleum Association
>
> - - - "FRAUD" organizations are petitioners v. U.S. Environmental
> Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
> Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
>
> - - - "FACT" organizations come from "Is There a Scientific Consensus on
> Global Warming?" at:http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Russian scientists see things differently and here is their evidence:
Xan Du
> Le 2010-03-06 09:45, John Manning a crit :
Science is not religion. Know the difference.
-Xan
Olrik
Blind belief is religion, whether based on 'science' or not.
Know the similarities.
Olrik
> -Xan
Xan Du
Climate scientists are not blind. Neither am I.
Do not presume to know that which you don't.
-Xan
Xan Du
> Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote innews:m2t4p5h8mk7hn0uhg...@4ax.com:
>
> > What caused the ice that once
> > filled the Great Lakes to melt?
>
> Did you guys see the pictures of Lake Erie freezing over this year?
>
> --
> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
> Larry
Weather is not climate.
Following are some quotes from real climate experts that anyone with
Internet access and a desire to truly understand may easily obtain for
themselves.
------------------------
One of the most prominent aspects of our weather and climate is its
variability. This variability ranges over many time and space scales,
from small-scale phenomena such as wind gusts, localized thunderstorms
and tornadoes, to larger-scale features such as fronts and storms, to
even more prolonged features such as droughts and floods, and to
fluctuations occurring on multi-seasonal, multi-year, multi-decade and
even multi-century time scales. Some examples of these longer time-
scale fluctuations include an abnormally hot and dry summer, an
abnormally cold and snowy winter, a consecutive series of abnormally
mild or exceptionally severe winters, and even a mild winter followed
by a severe winter. In general, the longer time-scale phenomena are
often associated with changes in the atmospheric circulation that
encompass areas far larger than a particular affected region. At
times, these persistent circulation features occur simultaneously over
vast, and seemingly unrelated, parts of the hemisphere, or even the
globe, and result in abnormal weather, temperature and rainfall
patterns throughout the world. During the past several decades,
scientists have discovered that important aspects of this interannual
variability in global weather patterns are linked to a global-scale,
naturally occurring phenomenon known as the El Niño/ Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) cycle. The terms El Niño and La Niña represent
opposite extremes of the ENSO cycle.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensocycle/clim_vari.shtml
El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled
ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on
interannual time scales.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/
El Niño and La Niña episodes typically occur every 3-5 years. However,
in the historical record this interval has varied from 2 to 7 years.
El Niño typically lasts 9-12 months, and La Niña typically lasts 1-3
years. They both tend to develop during March-June, reach peak
intensity during December-April, and then weaken during May-July.
However, prolonged El Niño episodes have lasted 2 years and even as
long as 3-4 years.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensofaq.shtml#CV
El Niño episodes are associated with four prominent changes in the
wintertime atmospheric flow across the eastern North Pacific and North
America. The first is an eastward extension and equatorward shift of
the East Asian jet stream from the International Date Line to the
southwestern United States. The second is a more west-to-east flow of
jet stream winds than normal across the United States. The third is a
southward shift of the storm track from the northern to the southern
part of the United States. The fourth is a southward and eastward
shift of the main region of cyclone formation to just west of
California. This shift results in an exceptionally stormy winter and
increased precipitation across California and the southern U.S, and
less stormy conditions across the northern part of the country. Also,
there is an enhanced flow of marine air into western North America,
along with a reduced northerly flow of cold air from Canada to the
United States. These conditions result in a milder than normal winter
across the northern states and western Canada.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensocycle/nawinter.shtml
What is the relationship between El Niño/La Niña and global warming?
The jury is still out on this. Are we likely to see more El Niño's
because of global warming? Will they be more intense? These are
questions facing the science community today. Research will help us
separate the natural climate variability from any trends due to man's
activities. If we cannot sort out what the natural variability does,
then we cannot identify the "fingerprint" of global warming. We also
need to look at the link between decadal changes in natural
variability and global warming. At this time we cannot preclude the
possibility of links but it is too early to say there is a definite
link.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensofaq.shtml#CV
Jan. 2009
Developing La Niña conditions are likely to continue into Northern
Hemisphere Spring 2009.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_jan2009/ensodisc.html
Feb. 2009
La Niña is expected to continue into Northern Hemisphere Spring 2009.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_feb2009/ensodisc.html
Mar. 2009
La Niña is expected to gradually weaken with increasing chances
(greater than 50%) for ENSO-neutral conditions during the Northern
Hemisphere Spring.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_mar2009/ensodisc.html
Apr. 2009
A transition to ENSO-neutral conditions is expected during April 2009.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_apr2009/ensodisc.html
May 2009
ENSO-neutral conditions are expected to continue into the Northern
Hemisphere Summer.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_may2009/ensodisc.html
Jun. 2009
Conditions are favorable for a transition from ENSO-neutral to El Niño
conditions during June - August 2009.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_jun2009/ensodisc.html
Jul. 2009
El Niño conditions will continue to develop and are expected to last
through the Northern Hemisphere Winter 2009-2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_jul2009/ensodisc.html
Aug. 2009
El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern
Hemisphere Winter 2009-2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_aug2009/ensodisc.html
Sep. 2009
El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern
Hemisphere winter 2009-2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_sep2009/ensodisc.html
Oct. 2009
El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern
Hemisphere winter 2009-2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_oct2009/ensodisc.html
Nov. 2009
El Niño is expected to continue strengthening and last through at
least the Northern Hemisphere winter 2009-2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_nov2009/ensodisc.html
Dec. 2009
El Niño is expected to continue and last at least into the Northern
Hemisphere spring 2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_dec2009/ensodisc.html
Jan. 2010
El Niño is expected to continue at least into the Northern Hemisphere
spring 2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_jan2010/ensodisc.html
Feb. 2010
El Niño is expected to continue at least into the Northern Hemisphere
spring 2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_feb2010/ensodisc.html
Mar. 2010
El Niño is expected to continue at least through the Northern
Hemisphere spring 2010.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_mar2010/ensodisc.html
------------------------
AGW is a worldwide climate effect measured by average temperature
increases over periods of time that are decades or longer.
ENSO is a hemispheric and regional climate effect measured by average
monthly temperature deviations that cycle up and down over periods of
time ranging from 2 to 7 years. The effects of AGW on ENSO
periodicity and El Niño/La Niña severity is poorly understood at the
moment and may or may not be linked to AGW at all, however this
possibility has not been ruled out.
Temperature extremes from day to day and month to month at a
particular locale are weather effects. Neither AGW or ENSO forecast
models purport to predict the temperature of the atmosphere over Lake
Erie on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis. It is abjectly
ignorant, or just flat out dishonest, to attempt to debunk real
climate science on the basis of the IPCC's imagined failure to do your
local meteorologist's job.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
> ... FACT:
>
> U.S. Agency for International Development
> United States Department of Agriculture
> National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> United States Department of Defense
> United States Department of Energy
> National Institutes of Health
> United States Department of State
> United States Department of Transportation
> U.S. Geological Survey
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
> University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
> National Center for Atmospheric Research
> National Aeronautics & Space Administration
> National Science Foundation
> Smithsonian Institution
> International Arctic Science Committee
> Arctic Council
> African Academy of Sciences
> Australian Academy of Sciences
> Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
> Academia Brasileira de Ci�ncias
> Cameroon Academy of Sciences
> Royal Society of Canada
> Caribbean Academy of Sciences
> Chinese Academy of Sciences
> Acad�mie des Sciences, France
> Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
> Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
> Indonesian Academy of Sciences
> Royal Irish Academy
> Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
> Indian National Science Academy
> Science Council of Japan
> Kenya National Academy of Sciences
> Madagascar�s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
> Academy of Sciences Malaysia
> Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
> Nigerian Academy of Sciences
> Royal Society of New Zealand
> Polish Academy of Sciences
> Russian Academy of Sciences
> l�Acad�mie des Sciences et Techniques du S�n�gal
> National Cattlemen�s Beef Association
> Great Northern Project Development
> Rosebud Mining
> Massey Energy
> Alpha Natural Resources
> Southeastern Legal Foundation
> Georgia Agribusiness Council
> Georgia Motor Trucking Association
> Corn Refiners Association
> National Association of Home Builders
> National Oilseed Processors Association
> National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
> Western States Petroleum Association
>
� What about Rush Limbaugh John?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
default
wrote:
>Weather is not climate.
It is if you are a religiously afflicted evangelical moron, who thinks
the bible gives one carte blanche to wreck the planet.
--
default
wrote:
>Russian scientists see things differently and here is their evidence:
>
>http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/
Perceived economic advantages seem to have a direct correlation
between how "scientists" see things.
In the case of Russia - climate warming might give them a huge
economic advantage over the rest of the world.
--
Simon Pamu
Antares 531
wrote:
Are you suggesting that Russia might become "the power from the
uttermost parts of the north" mentioned in the Bible?
Logan Sacket
> Academia Brasileira de CiīŋŊncias
> Cameroon Academy of Sciences
> Royal Society of Canada
> Caribbean Academy of Sciences
> Chinese Academy of Sciences
> AcadīŋŊmie des Sciences, France
> Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
> Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
> Indonesian Academy of Sciences
> Royal Irish Academy
> Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
> Indian National Science Academy
> Science Council of Japan
> Kenya National Academy of Sciences
> MadagascarīŋŊs National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
> Academy of Sciences Malaysia
> Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
> Nigerian Academy of Sciences
> Royal Society of New Zealand
> Polish Academy of Sciences
> Russian Academy of Sciences
> līŋŊAcadīŋŊmie des Sciences et Techniques du SīŋŊnīŋŊgal
> National CattlemenīŋŊs Beef Association
> Great Northern Project Development
> Rosebud Mining
> Massey Energy
> Alpha Natural Resources
> Southeastern Legal Foundation
> Georgia Agribusiness Council
> Georgia Motor Trucking Association
> Corn Refiners Association
> National Association of Home Builders
> National Oilseed Processors Association
> National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
> Western States Petroleum Association
>
>
>- - - "FRAUD" organizations are petitioners v. U.S. Environmental
>Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
>Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
>
>- - - "FACT" organizations come from "Is There a Scientific Consensus on
>Global Warming?" at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
What criteria does one use for determing whether or not these groups
have any clue whether AGW is real or not?
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
Those who accept that humans are changing the climate are not engaged in
blind belief, no matter what the coal and oil & gas lobbyists say. If
you are not a coal or oil & gas lobbyist, you are a fool for believing
their bull, they are lying to you and you have been suckered by them.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Thousands of years from now when the taiga and tundra finally have
arable soil. Until then? Not so much.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Look at whether they do science and whether they have a vested interest
in lying about the risk. Anyone can see that lobbyists who do no
science, but tell lies on behalf of coal or the API are not scientists
and that their opinion about it should carry zero weight.
Xan Du
It's the same battle isn't it. I just tend to fight them a little
differently.
-Xan
Xan Du
> wrote:
>
> >Russian scientists see things differently and here is their evidence:
>
> >http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/
>
> Perceived economic advantages seem to have a direct correlation
> between how "scientists" see things.
>
> In the case of Russia - climate warming might give them a huge
> economic advantage over the rest of the world.
> --
Excellent point.
Xan Du
> > Cameroon Academy of Sciences
> > Royal Society of Canada
> > Caribbean Academy of Sciences
> > Chinese Academy of Sciences
> > Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
> > Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
> > Indonesian Academy of Sciences
> > Royal Irish Academy
> > Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
> > Indian National Science Academy
> > Science Council of Japan
> > Kenya National Academy of Sciences
> > Academy of Sciences Malaysia
> > Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
> > Nigerian Academy of Sciences
> > Royal Society of New Zealand
> > Polish Academy of Sciences
> > Russian Academy of Sciences
> > Great Northern Project Development
> > Rosebud Mining
> > Massey Energy
> > Alpha Natural Resources
> > Southeastern Legal Foundation
> > Georgia Agribusiness Council
> > Georgia Motor Trucking Association
> > Corn Refiners Association
> > National Association of Home Builders
> > National Oilseed Processors Association
> > National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
> > Western States Petroleum Association
>
> >- - - "FRAUD" organizations are petitioners v. U.S. Environmental
> >Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
> >Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
>
> >- - - "FACT" organizations come from "Is There a Scientific Consensus on
> >Global Warming?" at:http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>
> What criteria does one use for determing whether or not these groups
> have any clue whether AGW is real or not?
Alright Logan, tell you what. Let's start over. When I first waded
into this discussion, I think I misjudged you. So let me apologize
for that and drop the rhetoric for a minute and speak to you one human
to another. I can live with people who have different religious views
from me, different political views, different sexual practices, eat
food that I think is nasty, or who don't use deodorant and have hairy
armpits. But I can't live at all if I don't have a planet to do it
on. If there's any shred of a chance that any of the things AGW
"alarmists" are talking about could happen in the next 20 to 50 years
then a lot of people are going to be fucked regardless of their race,
religion, IQ or political alignment. Politicians -- on the left as
much as the right -- have a known tendency to not give a rat's ass
about anything beyond the upcoming election cycle, and corporate
executives have a known tendency to not care for things much beyond
the next 10-K filing.
So I'm asking, human to human, consider the fact that climate
scientists went to school to do what they do. They do it every day.
97% of them are telling us that the climate is warming with
potentially disastrous effects, and that a significant factor in that
warming is being caused by releasing trillions of tons of carbon
annually that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for *millions*
of years. It's hard for me to *not* think that this is a plausible
threat, and it would be especially difficult for me as an armchair
science enthusiast to disagree with the majority of the experts in the
field on this one.
Now, it's pretty clear that you have political objections to how
liberal politicians in the US are using AGW as a scare tactic. *I
agree with you 100%* I'm sick of the politics of fear in this
country. We have the hard right reminding us every day that al Qaeda
wants to kill us, and the hard left reminding us every day that the
climate is going to kill us. Politicians on both sides are getting
paid to scare the shit out of everyone. I know it's not going to
stop, but it would be nice if it got a little better.
So, tell you what, meet me halfway here and just assume for the sake
of argument that AGW is real, and that dire consequences will happen
in the next 20 to 50 years if something isn't done about it. How
would you deal with it? What are the specific things that left-wing
liberal politicians are proposing to do about it that you disagree
with? I'm asking because I'm pretty comfortable with the science, but
I'm relatively clueless about the best political solution to the
problem, so here's your chance to sound off to an open mind on the
politics side of things.
One final favor. Before you compose your thoughts, here's a good
video to check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
The title is "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" which put me
off at first because I dislike the politics of fear. But the content
was not at all what I expected; it's a very convincing way of thinking
about AGW from a risk analysis/loss mitigation perspective. This
video does not debate the science at all -- the narrator assumes four
possible scenarios, two of them assume that AGW is a hoax. In other
words, he gives equal time to both sides of the argument. In my mind
we can't afford to not think about it in just these sorts of terms
because I don't know about you, but I'm getting too old to go back to
school to become a climatologist.
To turn science into a political debate when so much is potentially at
stake seems rather, well silly, to put it as mildly as possible.
Maybe after viewing this video and reading this note you'll understand
a little better why some people here on our "side" of the fence think
that way.
Regards,
Xan
sully
> On Mar 7, 12:35 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>
> > <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
snip
> Alright Logan, tell you what. Let's start over. When I first waded
> into this discussion, I think I misjudged you. So let me apologize
I'm curious what you misjudged. Logan is on record as distrusting
science, he believes that mainstream science magazines have a liberal
agenda and that climate science has no validity, one opinion is as
good as another.
Typical of denialists, he can't keep his story straight. He claims
opposing views to the overwhelming consensus are not allowed to be
published in peer reviewed journals, then provides links to small
papers in peer reviewed journals
that are opposed to the consensus. He says warming isn't happening,
it's actually cooling but but that CO2 has nothing to do with the
warming that is occurring. parse that one.
Further, I've caught Logan on two separate occasions over the recent
years
making an argument by simply plagiarizing right wing blogs for
arguments that he finds useful, and not making his own argument OR
even attributing the blog.
I've told him that this is deceitful and lazy and is overwhelming
evidence that he has no interest in learning about the topic in
discussion. He lifted whole paragraphs verbatim.
Is this how you misjudged Logan, that you believed him to be an honest
skeptic?
Xan Du
Compared to some of the other denialists he seems to have slightly
more willingness to think for himself, and I simply wished to see for
myself if giving him the benefit of doubt would bear that assumption
out. I do not have the depth of experience you do with him, nor with
this issue, so your position is noted and respected.
On a personal note, I hate you for apparently having an actual life on
the weekend. The average IQ in this joint drops appreciably when
you're not posting.
-Xan
Michael
> Compared to some of the other denialists
McFly, I thought I told you to never come in here again.
sully
I like Logan, I think he's very nice guy from what I can tell over
usenet.
>
> On a personal note, I hate you for apparently having an actual life on
> the weekend. The average IQ in this joint drops appreciably when
> you're not posting.
gack! IQ??? :^)
Xan Du
Not the easiest place to tell. But I didn't see it at all at first.
Hence my "let's start over" olive branch.
> > On a personal note, I hate you for apparently having an actual life on
> > the weekend. The average IQ in this joint drops appreciably when
> > you're not posting.
>
> gack! IQ??? :^)
Running jokes are meant to be run with. Straight into the ground
whenever possible.
-Xan
Xan Du
At least do me the favor of limiting your heckling to the thread you
created for that purpose. That will make it more fun for us, and less
annoying to everyone else.
-Xan
Logan Sacket
wrote:
>On Mar 7, 12:35�pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
Xan,
Interesting video. Far from equal though - methinks. He makes too
many assumptions for a valid trade study on the subject as he is
attemping to do. More importantly, he assumes that we actually can
*do something* to lower carbon levels. Even AGW'ers have noted that
it would be next to impossible for the world to change. If we did and
it all happened today, they claim it would be 50 years before we would
see the effects. Could we or would we know what, if any effect it
would have?
Really now, the sea level increase started ~1850 and the significant
hydrocarbon use did not start until the 1940's. How would you buck
that trend? Can you claim with any confidence at all that man has
caused it?
Yet we do have evidence that politically the deck has been stacked.
Climategate has shown us the pure arrogance of so called climate
experts. They have destroyed emails, they think themselves above the
data by manipulating it, (where did the cooling period go, where did
the historical high temperature periods go?) They blocked skeptic
publications, peer reviewed their buddies papers and they up-played
the effects.
NASA has two studies that show that the oceans have been cooling since
2003. Have you heard about those?
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
What drives this and why would so-called trusted scientists wrongly
mislead us? Well, scientists are actually humans just as much as
engineers. In the end, corruption is all about power, money,
personal recogintion and what people will do to achive it.
Thanks,
Xan Du
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:50:19 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 12:35 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>
> >> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
<snip>
Clearly he is an AGW believer, and thinks that something can be done
about it. But his overall point is that saying things like "AGW is a
myth" and "there's nothing we can do about carbon levels in the
atmosphere" may be like playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the
gun instead of 1. (Yes, I know there's a ethnic slur-based name for
that game, I just chose to not use it.)
The point of the video though was that you can do the same exercise
that he did. So, make your own assumptions up and share your version
of that with us. That's much more convincing than just making naked
assertions that this guy's assumptions were bad.
> If we did and
> it all happened today, they claim it would be 50 years before we would
> see the effects. Could we or would we know what, if any effect it
> would have?
If you don't know the answer to that question, that's ever the more
reason why you and I should be debating the politics not the science.
> Really now, the sea level increase started ~1850 and the significant
> hydrocarbon use did not start until the 1940's. How would you buck
> that trend? Can you claim with any confidence at all that man has
> caused it?
I am not a climatologist. I trust they know what they are talking
about. Let's talk about what we do and don't like about how liberal
politicians propose to deal with what we're assuming is a real and
present danger.
For myself, while you're working on your political arguments, I'll
read up on this because I'm not big on *blind* trust.
> Yet we do have evidence that politically the deck has been stacked.
> Climategate has shown us the pure arrogance of so called climate
> experts.
Yes, scientists are arrogant. Have you ever worked with any? I
have. Some of the biggest pricks on the planet. But like any expert
in any field, people who know their stuff tend to not suffer fools
gladly. I would also add that the 3% of climatologists who are
skeptical of AGW are just as arrogant. This argument is a non-
starter.
Oh, and the "so called expert" thing? Ad hominems are a lot of fun.
I use 'em all the time when I'm too lazy to think of a real argument,
or just feel like being saucy because someone is being a colossal
idiot -- and there's no shortage of people I think that of. But I try
to not make a habit of using them when I'm really interested in
debating something, and especially not when I think the guy I'm
talking to is smart enough to have the debate. So why not just drop
it, I'm not feeble minded enough to be fooled by such ineffective
rhetorical techniques, and you're smart enough to not have to use
them, k?
> They have destroyed emails, they think themselves above the
> data by manipulating it, (where did the cooling period go, where did
> the historical high temperature periods go?)
You just can't get the evil scientists out of your head. <sigh> On
this particular charge, I'll talk about the scientists themselves, not
the science.
I read the emails. They fucked up. It does not look good. But you
know what? I'm glad it happened, you know why?
1) The East Anglia CRU is going to clean house and clean up their
act.
2) Other AGW researchers are going to be held to higher levels of
scrutiny.
3) I got to read the unvarnished internal debates these guys have
with themselves, and that makes me a better skeptic. (You didn't know
I was a skeptic, did you?)
If there was some global conspiracy pulling the strings of 97% of
climatologists studying AGW, we'd expect to see evidence of such
collusion in the East Anglia emails. I've read probably 200 of them
right here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
That link is in my Opera speed-dial because it's the single best
resource that any AGW skeptic could ask for; it's a wet dream. I'm
giving it to you (again) with a challenge: find any compelling
evidence of a global liberal plot to make up this AGW myth. Explain
to us why such liberals would need 97% of climatologists to spin such
an elaborate hoax to begin with ... I mean if your goal is to create a
hoax, why do so much research?
> They blocked skeptic
> publications, peer reviewed their buddies papers and they up-played
> the effects.
Still talking science. What are the liberal politicians doing with
the science that you disagree with?
> NASA has two studies that show that the oceans have been cooling since
> 2003. Have you heard about those?http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-...
No Logan, I haven't. I'm not a climatologist. But while you're
working on your political arguments, I'll check out this link for my
own edification.
> What drives this and why would so-called trusted scientists wrongly
> mislead us?
You know, it's considered fighting dirty to use your interlocutors'
questions against them. I'm trying hard to not be too nasty here.
For now.
I'm grinning as I write this, which if you could see it, would
indicate that I'm jerking your chain in a friendly banterish sort of
way ...
> Well, scientists are actually humans just as much as
> engineers. In the end, corruption is all about power, money,
> personal recogintion and what people will do to achive it.
Yeah, and as I keep pointing out, the conservative politicians, oil
company execs, and the small group of scientists in their pockets are
motivated by the exact same human frailties. Your point is, you
believe the conservatives over the liberals. One more time, let's
talk about *that*.
It's been fun, let's do it again soon.
-Xan
>
> Thanks,
Logan Sacket
wrote:
>On Mar 9, 12:40 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:50:19 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Mar 7, 12:35 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>>
>> >> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
<snip old stuff>
>> Really now, the sea level increase started ~1850 and the significant
>> hydrocarbon use did not start until the 1940's. How would you buck
>> that trend? Can you claim with any confidence at all that man has
>> caused it?
>
>I am not a climatologist. I trust they know what they are talking
>about.
But that is the root of the problem. We can' trust them anymore.
Not only has East Anglia's Research been shown as fraud, our own NASA
is involved as well.
http://tinyurl.com/ylkkq76
>Let's talk about what we do and don't like about how liberal
>politicians propose to deal with what we're assuming is a real and
>present danger.
>
>For myself, while you're working on your political arguments, I'll
>read up on this because I'm not big on *blind* trust.
>
>> Yet we do have evidence that politically the deck has been stacked.
>> Climategate has shown us the pure arrogance of so called climate
>> experts.
>
>Yes, scientists are arrogant. Have you ever worked with any? I
>have. Some of the biggest pricks on the planet. But like any expert
>in any field, people who know their stuff tend to not suffer fools
>gladly. I would also add that the 3% of climatologists who are
>skeptical of AGW are just as arrogant. This argument is a non-
>starter.
OK
>Oh, and the "so called expert" thing? Ad hominems are a lot of fun.
>I use 'em all the time when I'm too lazy to think of a real argument,
>or just feel like being saucy because someone is being a colossal
>idiot -- and there's no shortage of people I think that of. But I try
>to not make a habit of using them when I'm really interested in
>debating something, and especially not when I think the guy I'm
>talking to is smart enough to have the debate. So why not just drop
>it, I'm not feeble minded enough to be fooled by such ineffective
>rhetorical techniques, and you're smart enough to not have to use
>them, k?
K, .........but, but those are Al Gore's words too....
>> They have destroyed emails, they think themselves above the
>> data by manipulating it, (where did the cooling period go, where did
>> the historical high temperature periods go?)
>
>You just can't get the evil scientists out of your head. <sigh> On
>this particular charge, I'll talk about the scientists themselves, not
>the science.
>
>I read the emails. They fucked up. It does not look good. But you
>know what? I'm glad it happened, you know why?
>
>1) The East Anglia CRU is going to clean house and clean up their
>act.
As were the Democrats going to have the most ethical congress in
history.
>2) Other AGW researchers are going to be held to higher levels of
>scrutiny.
Yes, a good thing. They have no choice.
>3) I got to read the unvarnished internal debates these guys have
>with themselves, and that makes me a better skeptic. (You didn't know
>I was a skeptic, did you?)
Can't say youi came across that way at all.
>If there was some global conspiracy pulling the strings of 97% of
>climatologists studying AGW, we'd expect to see evidence of such
>collusion in the East Anglia emails. I've read probably 200 of them
>right here:
>
>http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
>
>That link is in my Opera speed-dial because it's the single best
>resource that any AGW skeptic could ask for; it's a wet dream. I'm
>giving it to you (again) with a challenge: find any compelling
>evidence of a global liberal plot to make up this AGW myth. Explain
>to us why such liberals would need 97% of climatologists to spin such
>an elaborate hoax to begin with ... I mean if your goal is to create a
>hoax, why do so much research?
Because of the skeptics. Maybe they didn't exactly plan it that way,
but when you start pouring the bullions and bullions (do you like my
Carl Sagan imitations?) of dollars into something, it creates a
monster.
As you can tell from the e-mails, their research didn't always produce
the results they *wanted*. But they have to do research, because
they were getting pair for it and if someone happened to call them on
it, FOIA, for instance, (which they refused to acknowledge) they had
to show something.
>> They blocked skeptic
>> publications, peer reviewed their buddies papers and they up-played
>> the effects.
>
>Still talking science. What are the liberal politicians doing with
>the science that you disagree with?
Using it to control energy and take more of the peoples money.
Is this new to you? I just thought I'd ask, or are you just getting a
baseline?
>> NASA has two studies that show that the oceans have been cooling since
>> 2003. Have you heard about those?http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-...
>
>No Logan, I haven't. I'm not a climatologist. But while you're
>working on your political arguments, I'll check out this link for my
>own edification.
>
>> What drives this and why would so-called trusted scientists wrongly
>> mislead us?
>
>You know, it's considered fighting dirty to use your interlocutors'
>questions against them. I'm trying hard to not be too nasty here.
>For now.
>
>I'm grinning as I write this, which if you could see it, would
>indicate that I'm jerking your chain in a friendly banterish sort of
>way ...
Ha, I'm used to it.
>> Well, scientists are actually humans just as much as
>> engineers. In the end, corruption is all about power, money,
>> personal recogintion and what people will do to achive it.
>
>Yeah, and as I keep pointing out, the conservative politicians, oil
>company execs, and the small group of scientists in their pockets are
>motivated by the exact same human frailties. Your point is, you
>believe the conservatives over the liberals. One more time, let's
>talk about *that*.
>
>It's been fun, let's do it again soon.
I have no doubt that there are companies that are also paying
scientists to do research to:
1). See if they can get a handle of whether or not the political
scientist hacks are on track or not.
2) Gain knowledge so they can "clear the air" and continue to supply
people with resources.
3) Influence politicians with their facts.
4) Create the illusion that there is no AGW regardless of whether
there is or not.
Why do I think the Liberals are the worst of the lot? It's my
personal take of the meaning of freedom, self achievement and values
of God, country and family. Never mind which way I place them in
order.
The Liberals of this world are always trying to find some way to add
more control over their people. They steal their money and use it
against them, and create a climate (no pun intended) where the people
must depend on them, (the government), for their lively hood. Take
for instance the job situation in America. Would any knowing, sane
person be doing what our White House leaders are doing to create jobs?
Try this. Make a list of things that you would do to get people to
start hiring people and see what is on it.
Would placing a tax on energy use be one of them?
Would taxing people more for their health care be one?
Would Spending almost a $1trillion dollars on a stimulus package -
'where we are borrowing to bail ourselves out' be one?
Would paying more people to not work be one of them?
And they claim they are against slavery..
I dare say, they seem to be succeeding in what I see as their goal..
Xan Du
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:58:25 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 12:40 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:50:19 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 7, 12:35 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>>>>> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> <snip>
> <snip old stuff>
>>> Really now, the sea level increase started ~1850 and the significant
>>> hydrocarbon use did not start until the 1940's. How would you buck
>>> that trend? Can you claim with any confidence at all that man has
>>> caused it?
>> I am not a climatologist. I trust they know what they are talking
>> about.
>
> But that is the root of the problem. We can' trust them anymore.
>
>
> Not only has East Anglia's Research been shown as fraud, our own NASA
> is involved as well.
> http://tinyurl.com/ylkkq76
I'll read it and get back to you. I want to deal with some of the
political issues you raised below.
Al Gore does not speak for me. I speak for myself.
>>> They have destroyed emails, they think themselves above the
>>> data by manipulating it, (where did the cooling period go, where did
>>> the historical high temperature periods go?)
>> You just can't get the evil scientists out of your head. <sigh> On
>> this particular charge, I'll talk about the scientists themselves, not
>> the science.
>>
>> I read the emails. They fucked up. It does not look good. But you
>> know what? I'm glad it happened, you know why?
>>
>> 1) The East Anglia CRU is going to clean house and clean up their
>> act.
>
> As were the Democrats going to have the most ethical congress in
> history.
The Democratic party of the United States does not necessarily have any
control over what goes on at the East Anglia CRU. Nor does Congress'
ethics necessarily have any relationship to East Anglia's ethics.
If you could provide any of evidence of either or both of those
relationships, I would be happy to evaluate it.
Finally -- and bear in mind here that I am *not* happy with the
Democratic Congress right now -- tell me exactly how one would measure
Congress' ethics right now? How would we compare that to what they
promised? Would a partisan Republican ever believe me if I showed them
a report that demonstrated that the current Democratic Congress is the
most ethical one ever?
If a politician from either party ever told me that they were going to
form the "most ethical" Congress ever, I wouldn't believe him for a
moment -- it's a meaningless thing to say to begin with. But it gets
votes ...
>> 2) Other AGW researchers are going to be held to higher levels of
>> scrutiny.
>
> Yes, a good thing. They have no choice.
>
>> 3) I got to read the unvarnished internal debates these guys have
>> with themselves, and that makes me a better skeptic. (You didn't know
>> I was a skeptic, did you?)
>
> Can't say youi came across that way at all.
Just because I don't agree with your position doesn't mean I didn't ask
a lot of questions to arrive at my opinion. Even though I believe the
climatologists have gotten it right, I'm intensely skeptical of how
Democrats are going go about dealing with it. But I'm also pissed off
at how the Republicans are politicizing the AGW science instead debating
with Democrats about what to do about the AGW reality.
>> If there was some global conspiracy pulling the strings of 97% of
>> climatologists studying AGW, we'd expect to see evidence of such
>> collusion in the East Anglia emails. I've read probably 200 of them
>> right here:
>>
>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
>>
>> That link is in my Opera speed-dial because it's the single best
>> resource that any AGW skeptic could ask for; it's a wet dream. I'm
>> giving it to you (again) with a challenge: find any compelling
>> evidence of a global liberal plot to make up this AGW myth. Explain
>> to us why such liberals would need 97% of climatologists to spin such
>> an elaborate hoax to begin with ... I mean if your goal is to create a
>> hoax, why do so much research?
>
> Because of the skeptics. Maybe they didn't exactly plan it that way,
> but when you start pouring the bullions and bullions (do you like my
> Carl Sagan imitations?) of dollars into something, it creates a
> monster.
Fair enough hypothesis, but you need evidence to prove it. I don't see
anything here except speculation. I'm begging you, find some evidence,
I would read it if you did. Otherwise, I'm going to rest my case (in my
own mind anyway): how would it make sense from a cost-benefit
perspective to hire 97% of the climatologists that concur with AGW just
to debunk the 3% of skeptics? Am I talking past you here, something I'm
missing?
I do like your Sagan bit btw, gave me a laff. But "billions and
billions of dollars creates a monster" sound like a campaign slogan to
me. Put some meat on that argument if you're gonna use it.
> As you can tell from the e-mails, their research didn't always produce
> the results they *wanted*. But they have to do research, because
> they were getting pair for it and if someone happened to call them on
> it, FOIA, for instance, (which they refused to acknowledge) they had
> to show something.
Yeah I read those in their entirety. I read the several emails around
them. Looked up all the stuff on all the people mentioned in the
emails, looking for a liberal AGW conspiracy. I'm not seeing it, not
even one email from Gore. Zippo. You find one of those in there, and
I'll start listening.
Remember I'm *glad* this happened. It made me aware of how much
politics *is* influencing the science, and that the IPCC and other
organizations *do* need to be watched. Scrutiny is good, it means I can
trust people to do their job well.
>>> They blocked skeptic
>>> publications, peer reviewed their buddies papers and they up-played
>>> the effects.
>> Still talking science. What are the liberal politicians doing with
>> the science that you disagree with?
>
> Using it to control energy and take more of the peoples money.
> Is this new to you? I just thought I'd ask, or are you just getting a
> baseline?
I'm trying to get you to make a political argument instead of a
scientific one because your scientific arguments are quite clear to me,
but your political ones are not. But you start doing that below, so thanks.
>>> NASA has two studies that show that the oceans have been cooling since
>>> 2003. Have you heard about those?http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-...
>> No Logan, I haven't. I'm not a climatologist. But while you're
>> working on your political arguments, I'll check out this link for my
>> own edification.
>>
>>> What drives this and why would so-called trusted scientists wrongly
>>> mislead us?
>> You know, it's considered fighting dirty to use your interlocutors'
>> questions against them. I'm trying hard to not be too nasty here.
>> For now.
>>
>> I'm grinning as I write this, which if you could see it, would
>> indicate that I'm jerking your chain in a friendly banterish sort of
>> way ...
>
> Ha, I'm used to it.
This does not surprise me. :D
>>> Well, scientists are actually humans just as much as
>>> engineers. In the end, corruption is all about power, money,
>>> personal recogintion and what people will do to achive it.
>> Yeah, and as I keep pointing out, the conservative politicians, oil
>> company execs, and the small group of scientists in their pockets are
>> motivated by the exact same human frailties. Your point is, you
>> believe the conservatives over the liberals. One more time, let's
>> talk about *that*.
>>
>> It's been fun, let's do it again soon.
>
> I have no doubt that there are companies that are also paying
> scientists to do research to:
You mean "green" and renewable energy companies or fossil fuel
companies? I assume fossil fuel companies in my responses below ...
> 1). See if they can get a handle of whether or not the political
> scientist hacks are on track or not.
I can't tell to whom are you referring -- all 97% of climatologists in
the AGW camp?
Aside from that nit-pick, I have no problem with companies who fund
research to further their business interests. That's capitalism, and I
wouldn't have it any other way.
> 2) Gain knowledge so they can "clear the air" and continue to supply
> people with resources.
That's what their ads are saying yes. I would like to fully believe
them, but I don't.
The reason is pure economics -- it is simply more profitable right now
to burn fossil fuels than to develop and bring online non-greenhouse gas
emitting technologies. I'm a believer in capitalism and free market
economies subject to appropriate regulation, so I do not want anyone,
Democrats or Republicans to run the economy into the ground with energy
taxes. But I do not believe for a second that US oil companies are
primarily interested in "providing services". They're interested in
making money, and there's a lot of it on the table.
Consider the above an introduction to the topic. I have more to say on
this, and some numbers to scare up to support my case.
> 3) Influence politicians with their facts.
Don't forget "findings" and "opinions". A lot of stuff that is finding
and opinion is presented as fact, both sides of the AGW fence. Let's
both not lose sight of that.
> 4) Create the illusion that there is no AGW regardless of whether
> there is or not.
Ok good. I already knew you conceded that point previously, but it's
good to have it in this list.
> Why do I think the Liberals are the worst of the lot? It's my
> personal take of the meaning of freedom, self achievement and values
> of God, country and family. Never mind which way I place them in
> order.
Heh, well it was not my intent to debate liberal vs. conservative
political values here, I was hoping just to get you to talk more about
the politics of AGW. (Careful what you ask for, Xan.)
Anyway, I respect your views even if I don't agree with all of them.
Honestly I do, though you will sometimes see scathing criticism from me
on the subjects of God, conservative vs. liberal politics, etc., I do
fundamentally respect what people think and feel about what's "right" to
them.
But on this issue with you, I am talking to you as a concerned citizen
with a different viewpoint trying to reach an understanding. I doubt
you and I will ever reach full consensus on either the science or
politics of AGW, but again I am coming to see in your thinking that we
might be able to find some common ground here.
My main goal is to come away more educated, a secondary goal is to
demonstrate that not all left-leaning atheists such as myself have horns
and want to turn the US into a classless socialist state like some
far-right commentators and politicians are saying.
> The Liberals of this world are always trying to find some way to add
> more control over their people. They steal their money and use it
> against them, and create a climate (no pun intended) where the people
> must depend on them, (the government), for their lively hood. Take
> for instance the job situation in America.
All those arguments are made from the left against the right as well. I
don't seem to hate the far left like you do, but I'm not an unqualified
fan either.
> Would any knowing, sane
> person be doing what our White House leaders are doing to create jobs?
Specifics would be nice.
> Try this. Make a list of things that you would do to get people to
> start hiring people and see what is on it.
A little out of scope for AGW, but this is good -- I'm not going to
insist on keeping the conversation pure here. Here's a list just off
the top of my head.
Short Term:
1) Public works projects. Infrastructure improvements/additions, build
more nuclear plants, high-speed heavy rail, inner-city light rail.
2) Lower cost of employment. Payroll taxes, minimum wage (something I
thought I'd never say, but it might be a good idea right now), and
especially healthcare costs.
3) Lower corporate income taxes across the board. Tax breaks for hiring
American workers over foreign ones. At the same time preserve personal
income tax levels more or less as they are. I'd probably say that
ending tax break for the richest 5% of the population makes sense to
keep the deficit from running away.
Medium Term:
1) Immigration reform. I'm out on a limb on this one, but it feels like
the right thing to do to limit H1-B work visas for college-educated
foreign workers. I also have a crazy idea that it makes sense to offer
total amnesty to illegal unskilled workers and their employers, get them
into the local and state tax system (many of them are already paying
federal taxes and social security) and stop wasting so much money on
interdiction, incarceration and deportation. This might tend to drive
American jobs down you say, and you could be right, but I think with
appropriate tweaking of minimum wage that this might work.
Long Term:
1) Tax incentives for technology development. We're never going to be
competitive for low tech manufactured goods. But for high tech products
like nuclear power plants say, or solar and wind technology, biotech ...
next generation technologies -- we need to lead. Right now we don't.
2) Education. Particularly in reference to above, science, math and
engineering -- we're losing ground if not falling behind the rest of the
world in the quality of education in these areas.
> Would placing a tax on energy use be one of them?
No, I believe in free markets. Cap and trade is probably a better
option to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is I don't
really like the "cap" part of that. I need to learn more about the
options, right now I'm still bashing my head against the science with
you. S'ok, I need to do both, but I'm a lot more comfortable with the
science than I am with what to do about it policy-wise.
> Would taxing people more for their health care be one?
That isn't a direct factor in creating jobs. Taxing businesses for
health care is related to creating jobs, but that's not what you said.
Now I'll meet you part way on this. Reducing discretionary income means
people have less money to spend on goods and services, particularly
luxury goods and services. That does have a stunting effect on the
economy and job creation, but it isn't simple, and a one sentence sound
bite doesn't do it justice.
> Would Spending almost a $1trillion dollars on a stimulus package -
> 'where we are borrowing to bail ourselves out' be one?
I had my doubts about the stimulus package. For one thing, it
stimulated a lot of buying of goods that came from foreign countries. I
don't have the numbers handy and I'm getting too weary to look them up.
But, the economy is showing signs of recovery, and Obama is claiming
the stimulus is responsible. I want to believe him, but I haven't
honestly had time to check it out fully -- too busy taking a crash
course in climatology to handle your other questions. :D
> Would paying more people to not work be one of them?
Easy fella'. Unemployed here, living from check to check, about to lose
the house. Don't kick a man when he's down. And I'll recuse myself
from answering this question objectively right now because it just does
hit too close to home, literally.
> And they claim they are against slavery..
Well now I know where you stand, don't I? That comment seems a bit over
the top to me, but remember, I'm a deliberate centrist these days
because the noise machines on both extremes keep me from hearing about
what's really going on. And that's my biggest complaint with you ...
not that you have conservative values and political beliefs, but that
you seem to have your ear inside the far right wing's bullhorn and
you're not even giving the other side a fair shake.
> I dare say, they seem to be succeeding in what I see as their goal..
I gotta love your passion, I can say that. Hope this message finds you
well and I look forward to your reply.
-Xan
Logan Sacket
My ananology didn't connect with you?
>If you could provide any of evidence of either or both of those
>relationships, I would be happy to evaluate it.
>
>Finally -- and bear in mind here that I am *not* happy with the
>Democratic Congress right now -- tell me exactly how one would measure
>Congress' ethics right now? How would we compare that to what they
>promised?
I would say that it is all in the data. I'll not scour the net to
find any answers, but I'm good with personal observational activities.
>Would a partisan Republican ever believe me if I showed them
>a report that demonstrated that the current Democratic Congress is the
>most ethical one ever?
A hypothetical question to be sure. Yet, dishonest from the statement
alone.
>If a politician from either party ever told me that they were going to
>form the "most ethical" Congress ever, I wouldn't believe him for a
>moment -- it's a meaningless thing to say to begin with. But it gets
>votes ...
Yeeeah.
>>> 2) Other AGW researchers are going to be held to higher levels of
>>> scrutiny.
>>
>> Yes, a good thing. They have no choice.
>>
>>> 3) I got to read the unvarnished internal debates these guys have
>>> with themselves, and that makes me a better skeptic. (You didn't know
>>> I was a skeptic, did you?)
>>
>> Can't say youi came across that way at all.
>
>Just because I don't agree with your position doesn't mean I didn't ask
>a lot of questions to arrive at my opinion. Even though I believe the
>climatologists have gotten it right, I'm intensely skeptical of how
>Democrats are going go about dealing with it. But I'm also pissed off
>at how the Republicans are politicizing the AGW science instead debating
>with Democrats about what to do about the AGW reality.
Wow, I'm totally upside down on your point of view. I'm upset that
the Democrats are making political gains and using it to their
advantang when they know that even if has validity, any improvement
will be unmeasurable. In fact they are counting on it.
As to the Republicans, some swing in the wind, because they are trying
to have it both ways. Some are sincere about fighting to keep the
government out of our pockets and then there are those who believe in
AGW.
I understand what you are saying. Let's for a minute assume that you
are a politician and since you are a politiican, you have no morals.
Your party in its attempt to gain control of the government - meaning
that if you can get more people dependent on government, then you
control them, which gives you more power. Then, they then won't vote
for fiscal responsibility because that would mean they might lose:
Government provided health care, welfare, unemployment, tax credits,
( since almost 50% of Americans don't pay taxes), food stamps, and a
host of things that are progressively expanding. They won't vote for
Limited government, because that means the government won't adding to
what they now feel they are "entitled to" and they won't vote for
personal responsibility for the same reasons.
Again, you are that politician, and you want to further the agenda of
your party, You see a potential issue that you can use to convince
the people to give up their money for "security". So, with the
global temperatures warming since the first of the century, except for
a little setback in the 1940's you set out to prove that the earth is
on a death spiral and guess what, you the people are the problem.
Let's see - what is the best way to obtain our goal?
If we give money to scientists, especially universities, (which we
provide a lot of money to anyway), and ask them to study why the
earth is continuing to warm with the promise of more money.......
And the more money (bullions and bullions) that we hang out with a
carrot the more people we will have tryingn to chase it with the
results we want, since they are being paid to produce exaclty what we
asked for. Universities are always looking to increase income and it
is basically free and easy.
Meanwhile, here is a site that explains it better.
The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of
Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal
Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This
distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:
Ø The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’
money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including
science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns,
foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.
Ø Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to
unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots
movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the
integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a
lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have
been exposed again and again.
Ø Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks,
which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the
carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air
will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.
Ø Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is
repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than
a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less
than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.
Ø The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent
connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance
of self-serving vested interests.
Ø By pouring so much money into pushing a single,
scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an
unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ø Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of
politics and finance.
Says Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents
have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of
“Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who
claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get
serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to
pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and
massive movements of money.”
Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, says: “This study counts the cost
of years of wasted Federal spending on the ‘global warming’
non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs
have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding
their own “group-think” scientists who bend climate modeling to
justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and
forced population reduction.
“Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists
in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers
are getting the data right, or just getting the “right” data. Are
politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven
policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more
crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional
liberties are at risk.”
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
Now, do you see more of where I am coming from?
>> As you can tell from the e-mails, their research didn't always produce
>> the results they *wanted*. But they have to do research, because
>> they were getting pair for it and if someone happened to call them on
>> it, FOIA, for instance, (which they refused to acknowledge) they had
>> to show something.
>
>Yeah I read those in their entirety. I read the several emails around
>them. Looked up all the stuff on all the people mentioned in the
>emails, looking for a liberal AGW conspiracy. I'm not seeing it, not
>even one email from Gore. Zippo. You find one of those in there, and
>I'll start listening.
Follow the money trail.
That's fine with me. I can't prove to you that there is a God, let
alone that he created everything. Yet, I am a Christian. (non-LDS)
>But on this issue with you, I am talking to you as a concerned citizen
>with a different viewpoint trying to reach an understanding. I doubt
>you and I will ever reach full consensus on either the science or
>politics of AGW, but again I am coming to see in your thinking that we
>might be able to find some common ground here.
>
>My main goal is to come away more educated, a secondary goal is to
>demonstrate that not all left-leaning atheists such as myself have horns
>and want to turn the US into a classless socialist state like some
>far-right commentators and politicians are saying.
Well, you don't have horns yet, anyway. :-(
And no, religion and politics idealogy don't always track either.
>> The Liberals of this world are always trying to find some way to add
>> more control over their people. They steal their money and use it
>> against them, and create a climate (no pun intended) where the people
>> must depend on them, (the government), for their lively hood. Take
>> for instance the job situation in America.
>
>All those arguments are made from the left against the right as well. I
>don't seem to hate the far left like you do, but I'm not an unqualified
>fan either.
Some of those arguments from the Left are valid, but ring hollow.
Do you have a for-instance?
Good Day Xan
Xan Du
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:19:30 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Logan Sacket wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:58:25 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 9, 12:40 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:50:19 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 12:35 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>>>>>>> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> I read the emails. They fucked up. It does not look good. But you
>>>> know what? I'm glad it happened, you know why?
>>>>
>>>> 1) The East Anglia CRU is going to clean house and clean up their
>>>> act.
>>> As were the Democrats going to have the most ethical congress in
>>> history.
>> The Democratic party of the United States does not necessarily have any
>> control over what goes on at the East Anglia CRU. Nor does Congress'
>> ethics necessarily have any relationship to East Anglia's ethics.
>
> My ananology didn't connect with you?
Harumph. It did not ... I read too much into it and I think I
misunderstood your intent, apologies.
Point taken. Simply because East Anglia says they're going to clean up
their act is no guarantee that they will.
>> If you could provide any of evidence of either or both of those
>> relationships, I would be happy to evaluate it.
>>
>> Finally -- and bear in mind here that I am *not* happy with the
>> Democratic Congress right now -- tell me exactly how one would measure
>> Congress' ethics right now? How would we compare that to what they
>> promised?
>
> I would say that it is all in the data. I'll not scour the net to
> find any answers, but I'm good with personal observational activities.
I consider myself the same. But if there are data to be had, it is
always much better to evaluate it than rely on anecdote. There are
limits to time, accessibility, and comprehension however -- and the
quality and accuracy of data themselves can be questioned as well.
IOW, some things need to be taken on "faith". My main contention with
you is that your faith in your views is ill-founded, BUT I find that I
benefit from exploring them.
>> Would a partisan Republican ever believe me if I showed them
>> a report that demonstrated that the current Democratic Congress is the
>> most ethical one ever?
>
> A hypothetical question to be sure. Yet, dishonest from the statement
> alone.
I'll drop it ... I mistook the meaning of the above analogy that
argument was based on.
>> If a politician from either party ever told me that they were going to
>> form the "most ethical" Congress ever, I wouldn't believe him for a
>> moment -- it's a meaningless thing to say to begin with. But it gets
>> votes ...
>
> Yeeeah.
Was that an emphatic agreement, or sarcastic disagreement? I can't tell
... but 'tis a minor point, hardly worth pursuing.
<snip>
>> Just because I don't agree with your position doesn't mean I didn't ask
>> a lot of questions to arrive at my opinion. Even though I believe the
>> climatologists have gotten it right, I'm intensely skeptical of how
>> Democrats are going go about dealing with it. But I'm also pissed off
>> at how the Republicans are politicizing the AGW science instead debating
>> with Democrats about what to do about the AGW reality.
>
> Wow, I'm totally upside down on your point of view. I'm upset that
> the Democrats are making political gains and using it to their
> advantang when they know that even if has validity, any improvement
> will be unmeasurable. In fact they are counting on it.
Fair enough. It is now clear to me why the science is so important to
you, thanks for the explanation.
> As to the Republicans, some swing in the wind, because they are trying
> to have it both ways. Some are sincere about fighting to keep the
> government out of our pockets and then there are those who believe in
> AGW.
Good. I was not aware of this nuance in your thinking, nor that it was
even a reality. The message I hear from the right is one of solidarity
against AGW. I will take it under consideration that my own views are
perhaps a bit too polarized by the left wing noise machine, and do some
reading on my own to check my own assumptions.
<snip homework assignment>
> http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
>
> Now, do you see more of where I am coming from?
Perfectly, thank you. It is more than I can digest in this sitting, and
certainly more than I want to go through point-by-point at the moment.
I will do some reading on my own and come back to pieces of it later.
>>> As you can tell from the e-mails, their research didn't always produce
>>> the results they *wanted*. But they have to do research, because
>>> they were getting pair for it and if someone happened to call them on
>>> it, FOIA, for instance, (which they refused to acknowledge) they had
>>> to show something.
>> Yeah I read those in their entirety. I read the several emails around
>> them. Looked up all the stuff on all the people mentioned in the
>> emails, looking for a liberal AGW conspiracy. I'm not seeing it, not
>> even one email from Gore. Zippo. You find one of those in there, and
>> I'll start listening.
>
> Follow the money trail.
There's money on both sides, and it is mangling it on both sides. You
are pushing me to look at the issue more closely though, and that is
great, I'm happy to do it.
<snip>
>> Anyway, I respect your views even if I don't agree with all of them.
>> Honestly I do, though you will sometimes see scathing criticism from me
>> on the subjects of God, conservative vs. liberal politics, etc., I do
>> fundamentally respect what people think and feel about what's "right" to
>> them.
>
> That's fine with me. I can't prove to you that there is a God, let
> alone that he created everything. Yet, I am a Christian. (non-LDS)
I don't consider that a factor in this discussion. I am not an "all
Christians are stupid" atheist. In fact, I don't even think most of
them are. It's the noisy minority of stupid people who happen to be
Christian that drive me batty. You're not in that bucket, and I just
wanted to make sure you know that I make that distinction.
>> But on this issue with you, I am talking to you as a concerned citizen
>> with a different viewpoint trying to reach an understanding. I doubt
>> you and I will ever reach full consensus on either the science or
>> politics of AGW, but again I am coming to see in your thinking that we
>> might be able to find some common ground here.
>>
>> My main goal is to come away more educated, a secondary goal is to
>> demonstrate that not all left-leaning atheists such as myself have horns
>> and want to turn the US into a classless socialist state like some
>> far-right commentators and politicians are saying.
>
> Well, you don't have horns yet, anyway. :-(
YET??????
> And no, religion and politics idealogy don't always track either.
Tell me about it.
>>> The Liberals of this world are always trying to find some way to add
>>> more control over their people. They steal their money and use it
>>> against them, and create a climate (no pun intended) where the people
>>> must depend on them, (the government), for their lively hood. Take
>>> for instance the job situation in America.
>> All those arguments are made from the left against the right as well. I
>> don't seem to hate the far left like you do, but I'm not an unqualified
>> fan either.
>
> Some of those arguments from the Left are valid, but ring hollow.
> Do you have a for-instance?
I'll summarize my big four-instances:
1) Hawkish foreign policy. Perpetuates the military industrial complex
that Eisenhower warned of before leaving office. Costs a lot of money.
Increases foreign anti-American sentiment, requiring further spending
to protect against foreign threats. Lather, rinse, repeat. There is a
net benefit to this: "defense" contractors' bottom lines. That does
provide middle-class jobs, but this is disproportionate to the benefits
that go to corporate officers, and thence to Republican candidates'
campaign coffers. Yes, I know there are Democratic hawks on the take as
well; a comparative analysis would be required for me to make this
argument stick -- I have not done such, but this is my current
perception. The recent Citizens United Supreme court decision opening
the taps on corporate contributions to political campaigns exacerbates
the problem immensely.
2) Tax relief for the very rich. Increases income equality which is not
sustainable in a capitalistic economy. 81% of economists agree with
this. The result is to take away discretionary income from the middle
class, reducing their political power, and ability to invest either in
their own small- and medium-sized businesses or in large publicly-traded
corporations. The net effect is an increased consolidation of the vast
majority of wealth with a decreasing percentage of the population.
Taken too far, we end up with a corporate-backed autocracy that is
effectively as dysfunctional as a socialist economy, but one in which
the lower and middle classes still have the freedom of speech to
complain about it. However, these complaints fall on increasingly deaf
ears on the heads of people who can increasingly act with impunity to
further enrich themselves and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.
3) Civil rights issues. My issue du jour is same sex marriage. I would
also lump into this category abortion rights, recreational drug use,
federal wiretapping abuses under the Patriot Act, suspension of habeus
corpus and torture of terror suspects, and the death penalty.
4) Opposition to certain types of scientific and medical research. Stem
cell research is the big one here, followed by human cloning. Very
controversial issues to be sure, not gonna dig into them for now, just
listing them because you asked. AGW of course, and related to that
renewable energy.
That should keep us busy for a while. I do actually want to get back
into the AGW science with you a bit, because I've done quite a bit of
reading over the past few days, and that really is my primary interest
at the moment. But I'm always open to chat about whatever as long as
you are.
Regards,
Xan
<snip to end>
Logan Sacket
>Logan Sacket wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:19:30 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Logan Sacket wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:58:25 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 9, 12:40 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:50:19 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 12:35 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>>>>>>>> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
I have taken the license to snip a lot of stuff to shorten the post,
if you want to bring something back into the mix, feel free.
>>> Finally -- and bear in mind here that I am *not* happy with the
>>> Democratic Congress right now -- tell me exactly how one would measure
>>> Congress' ethics right now? How would we compare that to what they
>>> promised?
>>
>> I would say that it is all in the data. I'll not scour the net to
>> find any answers, but I'm good with personal observational activities.
>
>I consider myself the same. But if there are data to be had, it is
>always much better to evaluate it than rely on anecdote. There are
>limits to time, accessibility, and comprehension however -- and the
>quality and accuracy of data themselves can be questioned as well.
>
>IOW, some things need to be taken on "faith". My main contention with
>you is that your faith in your views is ill-founded, BUT I find that I
>benefit from exploring them.
That's fair enough. Influences, past experiences and poor/misleading
information will do that. Of couse, there are actual books and
courses that can open your mind to the tactics and desception used by
the oposing force. Saul Alinsky comes to mind as one to study.
>> http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
>>
>> Now, do you see more of where I am coming from?
>
>Perfectly, thank you. It is more than I can digest in this sitting, and
>certainly more than I want to go through point-by-point at the moment.
>I will do some reading on my own and come back to pieces of it later.
>
>>>> As you can tell from the e-mails, their research didn't always produce
>>>> the results they *wanted*. But they have to do research, because
>>>> they were getting pair for it and if someone happened to call them on
>>>> it, FOIA, for instance, (which they refused to acknowledge) they had
>>>> to show something.
>>> Yeah I read those in their entirety. I read the several emails around
>>> them. Looked up all the stuff on all the people mentioned in the
>>> emails, looking for a liberal AGW conspiracy. I'm not seeing it, not
>>> even one email from Gore. Zippo. You find one of those in there, and
>>> I'll start listening.
>>
>> Follow the money trail.
>
>There's money on both sides, and it is mangling it on both sides.
Where there is a ~1000/1 ratio in money for the advancement of one
POV, the message of the one is much more easily dismissed by the
followers of the 1000.
But speaking of the money trail, here is something that if correct, is
staggering.
"If we count the entire world, global warming research expeditures
such as carbon trading, it accounts for US$ 128 billion just in the
year 2008 alone! Experts predicts that the carbon market fueled by
government´s money (your taxes) will be on the rise reaching a
staggering number between US$ 2 to $ 10 trillion, making it the
largest commodity traded, more than oil, coal, gas, or iron."
It seems to follow the old saying, "If you want to make a million,
create a religion.
><snip>
>
>>> Anyway, I respect your views even if I don't agree with all of them.
>>> Honestly I do, though you will sometimes see scathing criticism from me
>>> on the subjects of God, conservative vs. liberal politics, etc., I do
>>> fundamentally respect what people think and feel about what's "right" to
>>> them.
>>
>> That's fine with me. I can't prove to you that there is a God, let
>> alone that he created everything. Yet, I am a Christian. (non-LDS)
>
>I don't consider that a factor in this discussion. I am not an "all
>Christians are stupid" atheist. In fact, I don't even think most of
>them are. It's the noisy minority of stupid people who happen to be
>Christian that drive me batty. You're not in that bucket, and I just
>wanted to make sure you know that I make that distinction.
>
>>> But on this issue with you, I am talking to you as a concerned citizen
>>> with a different viewpoint trying to reach an understanding. I doubt
>>> you and I will ever reach full consensus on either the science or
>>> politics of AGW, but again I am coming to see in your thinking that we
>>> might be able to find some common ground here.
>>>
>>> My main goal is to come away more educated, a secondary goal is to
>>> demonstrate that not all left-leaning atheists such as myself have horns
>>> and want to turn the US into a classless socialist state like some
>>> far-right commentators and politicians are saying.
>>
>> Well, you don't have horns yet, anyway. :-(
>
>YET??????
In the Christian POV, an allegory of one who denies our creator and
saviour.
Certainly valid points. Having worked in industries that supported
defense contractors, I can see big problems all over the place. It
is an extremetly difficult business that is heavily weighted in
politics. A defence company can spend millions of dollars on a
proposal, just to have the government either cancel the program,
change it in such a way that you are no longer a candiate or that they
already have the supplier selected, when they only needed you to bid
so it goes through the open bid process.
For instance, I have a small business in my garage. This is in
addition to my day job in industry. I could easliy expand, but to do
so, I would have employ workers, either part time or full time. But
the added burden of accounting, taxes (social security, unemployment,
labor rules and possible health care issues) is holding me back.
Would this create jobs? Yes. But the government is again standing in
the way.
That said, one of the major roles of the government is to provide the
national proteciton against overthrow, invasion or whatever means
another entity may use to control or take our nation. There will
always be waste, politics and unfairness. But I would bet that we do
our military procurement better and fairer than any other country.
>2) Tax relief for the very rich. Increases income equality which is not
>sustainable in a capitalistic economy. 81% of economists agree with
>this. The result is to take away discretionary income from the middle
>class, reducing their political power, and ability to invest either in
>their own small- and medium-sized businesses or in large publicly-traded
>corporations. The net effect is an increased consolidation of the vast
>majority of wealth with a decreasing percentage of the population.
>Taken too far, we end up with a corporate-backed autocracy that is
>effectively as dysfunctional as a socialist economy, but one in which
>the lower and middle classes still have the freedom of speech to
>complain about it. However, these complaints fall on increasingly deaf
>ears on the heads of people who can increasingly act with impunity to
>further enrich themselves and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.
A lot to go through here, but I'd like you to read these statistics on
the subject. I don't agree that all of your assertions are accurate.
My personal opinion is that a straght flat tax with no deductions, is
the only real fair way to tax.
>3) Civil rights issues. My issue du jour is same sex marriage. I would
>also lump into this category abortion rights, recreational drug use,
>federal wiretapping abuses under the Patriot Act, suspension of habeus
>corpus and torture of terror suspects, and the death penalty.
These moral issues are things that are mostly part of my upbringing.
Same sex marriage is an oxymoron to me. I have no problem with
persons of the same sex wanting to live together, but why should we
call it marriage? It's not. That type of union does not physically
allow for offspring. Yes, it is not the traditional type of family
where the couple mates, so to speak. Therefore why is it marriage?
It's simply companionship.
Abortion - Being a Christian, I have no manueverability in this issue.
It is taking the life of an unborn person, whom God knew in the womb.
Drug use - it's a bad thing. It promotes homelessness, family
problems, dependency on a substance that will ruin or shorten most
lives and provides a disconnect from reality. Ultimatly drags down
society.
The big issue I see with the rest is national security and the loss of
rights for citizens. As I see it there is no line in the sand that
can satisfy both objectives. War is war and somehow we need to have
means to protect ourselves. I feel inadequate to even take a side
here because I don't have a firm stand. One could argue from both
sides of the street and not provide a solution.
Torture.
In certain circumstances, (of course who decides) I can agree with
this.
I don't really care if there is or is not a death penalty or not.
However, if there is not, then why the abortion stance? Do you have
an reservations of whether or not a human actually exists while in the
womb?
>4) Opposition to certain types of scientific and medical research. Stem
>cell research is the big one here, followed by human cloning. Very
>controversial issues to be sure, not gonna dig into them for now, just
>listing them because you asked. AGW of course, and related to that
>renewable energy.
Good, I don't really have any hard opinion to these issues anyway.
other than AGW.
>That should keep us busy for a while. I do actually want to get back
>into the AGW science with you a bit, because I've done quite a bit of
>reading over the past few days, and that really is my primary interest
>at the moment. But I'm always open to chat about whatever as long as
>you are.
Great.
I enjoy it, as long as I have the time to respond. I travel a fair
amount, so lapses in response can occur occasionally.
Xan Du
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:12:48 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Logan Sacket wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:19:30 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Logan Sacket wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:58:25 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 9, 12:40 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:50:19 -0800 (PST), Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 12:35 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:04 -0300, John Manning
>>>>>>>>> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> I have taken the license to snip a lot of stuff to shorten the post,
> if you want to bring something back into the mix, feel free.
Good call. I'm happy to have taken the time to get the big picture
here, but don't want to lose track of the AGW issue in all that. We
both have limited time, yes?
>>>> Finally -- and bear in mind here that I am *not* happy with the
>>>> Democratic Congress right now -- tell me exactly how one would measure
>>>> Congress' ethics right now? How would we compare that to what they
>>>> promised?
>>> I would say that it is all in the data. I'll not scour the net to
>>> find any answers, but I'm good with personal observational activities.
>> I consider myself the same. But if there are data to be had, it is
>> always much better to evaluate it than rely on anecdote. There are
>> limits to time, accessibility, and comprehension however -- and the
>> quality and accuracy of data themselves can be questioned as well.
>>
>> IOW, some things need to be taken on "faith". My main contention with
>> you is that your faith in your views is ill-founded, BUT I find that I
>> benefit from exploring them.
>
> That's fair enough. Influences, past experiences and poor/misleading
> information will do that. Of couse, there are actual books and
> courses that can open your mind to the tactics and desception used by
> the oposing force. Saul Alinsky comes to mind as one to study.
I'll look into that, thanks.
>>> http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
>>>
>>> Now, do you see more of where I am coming from?
>> Perfectly, thank you. It is more than I can digest in this sitting, and
>> certainly more than I want to go through point-by-point at the moment.
>> I will do some reading on my own and come back to pieces of it later.
>>
>>>>> As you can tell from the e-mails, their research didn't always produce
>>>>> the results they *wanted*. But they have to do research, because
>>>>> they were getting pair for it and if someone happened to call them on
>>>>> it, FOIA, for instance, (which they refused to acknowledge) they had
>>>>> to show something.
>>>> Yeah I read those in their entirety. I read the several emails around
>>>> them. Looked up all the stuff on all the people mentioned in the
>>>> emails, looking for a liberal AGW conspiracy. I'm not seeing it, not
>>>> even one email from Gore. Zippo. You find one of those in there, and
>>>> I'll start listening.
>>> Follow the money trail.
>> There's money on both sides, and it is mangling it on both sides.
>
> Where there is a ~1000/1 ratio in money for the advancement of one
> POV, the message of the one is much more easily dismissed by the
> followers of the 1000.
Sure, but the money at stake for the side funding that tenth of a
percent research is pretty big, yes? Does it count big oil campaign
expenditures too? You've got a link below for me to read, but my
knee-jerk reaction is that the 1000/1 argument is a little disingenuous.
Up to me now to demonstrate that I guess, but I have not the
brain-power to do so in this post. Real life intrudes on the time I can
spend here, and other issues here have been taking away time I've had to
spend on studying climatology and its politics.
> But speaking of the money trail, here is something that if correct, is
> staggering.
>
> "If we count the entire world, global warming research expeditures
> such as carbon trading, it accounts for US$ 128 billion just in the
> year 2008 alone! Experts predicts that the carbon market fueled by
> government´s money (your taxes) will be on the rise reaching a
> staggering number between US$ 2 to $ 10 trillion, making it the
> largest commodity traded, more than oil, coal, gas, or iron."
>
> http://www.mahalo.com/answers/science/how-much-money-was-spent-on-global-warming-research-between-2000-and-2009
Aaack, more reading. It's in the queue.
> It seems to follow the old saying, "If you want to make a million,
> create a religion.
LOL, as an ex-Mormon, I find that particularly funny and applicable.
Trust me I know. Suffice to say, I don't think all Christians are
silly, but silly people who happen to be Christian, well ... it can be
hazardous ground. I can respect the beliefs of those who can respect
mine. How's that?
This is how we end up with $100,000 toilets right? I kid a bit here --
I just need a chuckle today.
> For instance, I have a small business in my garage. This is in
> addition to my day job in industry. I could easliy expand, but to do
> so, I would have employ workers, either part time or full time. But
> the added burden of accounting, taxes (social security, unemployment,
> labor rules and possible health care issues) is holding me back.
> Would this create jobs? Yes. But the government is again standing in
> the way.
Obama's tax incentives for small/medium businesses is lip service then?
This is an honest question.
Also, I have a theory that eliminating payroll taxes and corporate taxes
altogether, with corresponding hikes in personal income taxes might be
something to think about. I know your feelings on flat taxation would
be an immediate objection, but any other thoughts?
> That said, one of the major roles of the government is to provide the
> national proteciton against overthrow, invasion or whatever means
> another entity may use to control or take our nation. There will
> always be waste, politics and unfairness. But I would bet that we do
> our military procurement better and fairer than any other country.
Good stuff Logan. I did not know this was your field, and hope to
explore that a little more as we go along. I have a few more things to
say about protecting national interests below.
>> 2) Tax relief for the very rich. Increases income equality which is not
>> sustainable in a capitalistic economy. 81% of economists agree with
>> this. The result is to take away discretionary income from the middle
>> class, reducing their political power, and ability to invest either in
>> their own small- and medium-sized businesses or in large publicly-traded
>> corporations. The net effect is an increased consolidation of the vast
>> majority of wealth with a decreasing percentage of the population.
>> Taken too far, we end up with a corporate-backed autocracy that is
>> effectively as dysfunctional as a socialist economy, but one in which
>> the lower and middle classes still have the freedom of speech to
>> complain about it. However, these complaints fall on increasingly deaf
>> ears on the heads of people who can increasingly act with impunity to
>> further enrich themselves and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.
>
> A lot to go through here, but I'd like you to read these statistics on
> the subject. I don't agree that all of your assertions are accurate.
> My personal opinion is that a straght flat tax with no deductions, is
> the only real fair way to tax.
>
> http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
Sure, a lot to go through, just giving you my perspective and ideas -- I
didn't really expect to debate them all point by point. I'll add that
link to my reading queue and come back to it at some later time.
>> 3) Civil rights issues. My issue du jour is same sex marriage. I would
>> also lump into this category abortion rights, recreational drug use,
>> federal wiretapping abuses under the Patriot Act, suspension of habeus
>> corpus and torture of terror suspects, and the death penalty.
>
> These moral issues are things that are mostly part of my upbringing.
> Same sex marriage is an oxymoron to me. I have no problem with
> persons of the same sex wanting to live together, but why should we
> call it marriage? It's not. That type of union does not physically
> allow for offspring. Yes, it is not the traditional type of family
> where the couple mates, so to speak. Therefore why is it marriage?
> It's simply companionship.
This has been a big topic on alt.religion.mormon, which I understand you
don't normally participate in, but Mr. Manning's cross-posting habits
brought you here. Your POV makes a lot of sense to me, but there's a
civil liberties issue here that trumps all that in my mind. I consider
my position on the issue pretty well-balanced -- too balanced apparently
for some folk. We've had a pretty nasty fight here about it, and I got
shot to hell in it, including probably shooting myself in the foot --
it's hard to be the guy taking the middle road in such a fight, but I
felt someone had to do it.
> Abortion - Being a Christian, I have no manueverability in this issue.
> It is taking the life of an unborn person, whom God knew in the womb.
My best friend from high school is a very conservative atheist. He
feels the same as you do on this issue. My position is different, of
course, and we've had some genuinely good discussions about it. It's a
hard hard issue for me to have a position on -- my parents were not
married when I was conceived for one thing -- but it's again a civil
liberties issue for me. Really a tough issue, this one, a dilemma for
me no doubt, so I try to be thoughtful about my position.
One like-minded fellow on ARM points out that conservatives oppose
abortion, but also oppose child support from the resulting births. It
really turns his crank. I myself have not validated his argument, so
I'll throw that question to you if you have a ready answer for it.
> Drug use - it's a bad thing. It promotes homelessness, family
> problems, dependency on a substance that will ruin or shorten most
> lives and provides a disconnect from reality. Ultimatly drags down
> society.
My very quick answer to that, again respecting your position to the
utmost, is that alcohol and tobacco are both legal drugs that do the
very same thing. My position is that were certain drugs legal, the net
benefit to society would be increased tax revenues (to squander on
welfare, of course). I'd rather the gov't have the money to spend on
treatment programs than criminal enterprises to spend on guns and SUVs.
> The big issue I see with the rest is national security and the loss of
> rights for citizens. As I see it there is no line in the sand that
> can satisfy both objectives. War is war and somehow we need to have
> means to protect ourselves. I feel inadequate to even take a side
> here because I don't have a firm stand. One could argue from both
> sides of the street and not provide a solution.
Very well put. One of my main issues with the far left camp is that
they seem to be disconnected from the reality of what it means to be a
superpower. They live in a secure nation in very nice houses, driving
well-made C02 emitting cars, and purchase cheap trinkets made in China
just the same as y'all conservative types do. I want to strangle them
sometimes.
I don't think there's a clean line in the sand. My frustration with
Washington politics is that it is so dysfunctional right now that they
can't handle such messy issues at all. Just totally incapable of
rational discussion about it. I *do* think there are better solutions,
not perfect, but better ones. I'm afraid it ain't gonna happen in the
current Congress -- I'm afraid a very large enema may be in order. Fie.
> Torture.
> In certain circumstances, (of course who decides) I can agree with
> this.
Of course who decides is the key. I don't like slippery slope arguments
-- they're fallacious for the most part. This one, it's just to
dangerous a road to go down. Non-partisan experts claim that it's just
ineffective. I can tell you that if you put Osama bin Laden in a room
with me, I'd be happy to have you hold him while I beat the living tar
out of him, and then trade positions while you whomped on him until he
was dead. Going there is a moral hazard. Maybe maybe maybe IF there
was a ticking bomb somewhere and the guy knew where it was, dunk his
head in the toilet a few times and flush until he gives up the location.
Other suspects, sleep deprivation, "truth" drugs, I can go along with
some of this. But waterboarding? Right out for most cases sez me.
> I don't really care if there is or is not a death penalty or not.
> However, if there is not, then why the abortion stance?
I have a similar problem with folks who are pro-death penalty and
anti-abortion. Touchy subject, more detail below.
> Do you have
> an reservations of whether or not a human actually exists while in the
> womb?
A more than fair question, and I will not dodge it. I think that an
unwanted child is better off not being born. It wrenches my heart and
my soul to say that, but it's how I feel. Abortion as birth control is
a horrid practice -- birth control for birth control is the way to go.
From a religious POV, when I was practicing LDS, I believed that the
spirit enters the body at the moment of conception, so I have not always
been "pro-choice". My conservative friend mentioned above gives me a
fair amount of flak about this terminology, saying, "Xan, you're
pro-abortion, just admit it, your silly word games dodge the issue." I
understand his frustration, but it's honestly not word games for me. I
think a woman (and her partner if he's involved) should have the right
to choose whether to bear a child or not, and though her and her
partner's actions may be shameful in many, if not most, instances,
people who think that they should not be parents should be free to
decide that for themselves.
Again, from the religious POV, belief in God might trump all that: God
willed that child to be conceived, and God's will should be respected.
I think it's a logical argument, but again, my feeling is that the
government's job is to not dictate God's POV to its citizens. Even when
I was religious, I kept in mind a few scriptures along the lines of
Paul's words in Romans 14 (KJV):
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at
nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of
Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow
to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this
rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his
brother’s way.
IOW, those who choose to abort a life face God's judgment. It was
consistent for me to be a believer in God, and yet advocate keeping the
government out of the business of enforcing my own beliefs regarding the
sin of ending a human life /in utero/.
Again, I cannot stress enough how divided I am on this, but it's one I
took care to take a stance on, and I think it's as nuanced and
well-thought through as I can possibly be on such a contentious and
morally hazardous issue.
>> 4) Opposition to certain types of scientific and medical research. Stem
>> cell research is the big one here, followed by human cloning. Very
>> controversial issues to be sure, not gonna dig into them for now, just
>> listing them because you asked. AGW of course, and related to that
>> renewable energy.
>
> Good, I don't really have any hard opinion to these issues anyway.
> other than AGW.
>
>> That should keep us busy for a while. I do actually want to get back
>> into the AGW science with you a bit, because I've done quite a bit of
>> reading over the past few days, and that really is my primary interest
>> at the moment. But I'm always open to chat about whatever as long as
>> you are.
>
> Great.
>
> I enjoy it, as long as I have the time to respond. I travel a fair
> amount, so lapses in response can occur occasionally.
>
Eh, I used to travel 100% for work, until getting laid off. I know the
life.
I note that Mike Sullivan has a few questions for you that are as yet
unanswered specific to AGW. I'd be happy to see you get back to that
stuff before coming back to this post, time permitting of course. And
you've given me a lot of reading -- we say in consulting, "two ears, one
mouth."
Regards,
Xan
Logan Sacket
Fine with me, I have no problem hanging around with people that I
don't agree with all the time.
I find it extemely sad that ex-Mormons, as well as other false
religions, leave and become aitheists. I can certainly understand how
that betrayal can be directed at God who (I believe does exist) but
was really a created false religion and not by any means Christian.
Well, you can bet that if the hammer costs $100, then it is because
the govenment wanted it just that way. Oh, you said toilets. Well,
the Indian blood in me can't quite grasp that.
>
>> For instance, I have a small business in my garage. This is in
>> addition to my day job in industry. I could easliy expand, but to do
>> so, I would have employ workers, either part time or full time. But
>> the added burden of accounting, taxes (social security, unemployment,
>> labor rules and possible health care issues) is holding me back.
>> Would this create jobs? Yes. But the government is again standing in
>> the way.
>
>Obama's tax incentives for small/medium businesses is lip service then?
> This is an honest question.
No, it's not lip service, it exists. But again, it doesn't create the
underlying reason for hiring someone. What it does is take the
people's money and again gives it to someone else to do something the
government want, and not what would naturally happen in a health
economy.
>Also, I have a theory that eliminating payroll taxes and corporate taxes
>altogether, with corresponding hikes in personal income taxes might be
>something to think about. I know your feelings on flat taxation would
>be an immediate objection, but any other thoughts?
I'm not sure I understand. Is the object to have people pay their
taxes out of pocket instead of through payroll deductions?
Yea, that would work alright.
By being a moderate, your certainly under attack by both sides.
I have not been following that thread, but in my view, any morality we
have is not a natural state state of fallen man. I really don't care
to expand much on that either.
>> Abortion - Being a Christian, I have no manueverability in this issue.
>> It is taking the life of an unborn person, whom God knew in the womb.
>
>My best friend from high school is a very conservative atheist. He
>feels the same as you do on this issue. My position is different, of
>course, and we've had some genuinely good discussions about it. It's a
>hard hard issue for me to have a position on -- my parents were not
>married when I was conceived for one thing -- but it's again a civil
>liberties issue for me. Really a tough issue, this one, a dilemma for
>me no doubt, so I try to be thoughtful about my position.
>
>One like-minded fellow on ARM points out that conservatives oppose
>abortion, but also oppose child support from the resulting births. It
>really turns his crank. I myself have not validated his argument, so
>I'll throw that question to you if you have a ready answer for it.
I have been under the impression that there is no lack of wanting
parents with adoptive services if one wants to carry to term.
>> Drug use - it's a bad thing. It promotes homelessness, family
>> problems, dependency on a substance that will ruin or shorten most
>> lives and provides a disconnect from reality. Ultimatly drags down
>> society.
>
>My very quick answer to that, again respecting your position to the
>utmost, is that alcohol and tobacco are both legal drugs that do the
>very same thing. My position is that were certain drugs legal, the net
>benefit to society would be increased tax revenues (to squander on
>welfare, of course). I'd rather the gov't have the money to spend on
>treatment programs than criminal enterprises to spend on guns and SUVs.
All are addictive and certainly come with their problems. The problem
is that they will always be with us. Legalizing them will only expand
their use. How can that be a good thing?
It is a large questions and I haven't really thought about it in
years now.
>
>> The big issue I see with the rest is national security and the loss of
>> rights for citizens. As I see it there is no line in the sand that
>> can satisfy both objectives. War is war and somehow we need to have
>> means to protect ourselves. I feel inadequate to even take a side
>> here because I don't have a firm stand. One could argue from both
>> sides of the street and not provide a solution.
>
>Very well put. One of my main issues with the far left camp is that
>they seem to be disconnected from the reality of what it means to be a
>superpower. They live in a secure nation in very nice houses, driving
>well-made C02 emitting cars, and purchase cheap trinkets made in China
>just the same as y'all conservative types do. I want to strangle them
>sometimes.
Gosh I can't remember what the subject of this was...
>I don't think there's a clean line in the sand. My frustration with
>Washington politics is that it is so dysfunctional right now that they
>can't handle such messy issues at all. Just totally incapable of
>rational discussion about it. I *do* think there are better solutions,
>not perfect, but better ones. I'm afraid it ain't gonna happen in the
>current Congress -- I'm afraid a very large enema may be in order. Fie.
>
>> Torture.
>> In certain circumstances, (of course who decides) I can agree with
>> this.
>
>Of course who decides is the key. I don't like slippery slope arguments
>-- they're fallacious for the most part. This one, it's just to
>dangerous a road to go down. Non-partisan experts claim that it's just
>ineffective. I can tell you that if you put Osama bin Laden in a room
>with me, I'd be happy to have you hold him while I beat the living tar
>out of him, and then trade positions while you whomped on him until he
>was dead. Going there is a moral hazard. Maybe maybe maybe IF there
>was a ticking bomb somewhere and the guy knew where it was, dunk his
>head in the toilet a few times and flush until he gives up the location.
> Other suspects, sleep deprivation, "truth" drugs, I can go along with
>some of this. But waterboarding? Right out for most cases sez me.
Just a quick note on this.
Once we publically start limiting our methods of extracting
information, we can suffer dramatically. Sometimes as you can
imagine, it is the subtle things that count the most.
Water boarding is not a physical, but a psychological method of
getting someone to open up. I'm for leaving the door wide open on
this.
>> I don't really care if there is or is not a death penalty or not.
>> However, if there is not, then why the abortion stance?
>
>I have a similar problem with folks who are pro-death penalty and
>anti-abortion. Touchy subject, more detail below.
I see it difficult to equate the two. One is for one who is going to
start life and the other is for someone who took life.
>> Do you have
>> an reservations of whether or not a human actually exists while in the
>> womb?
>
>A more than fair question, and I will not dodge it. I think that an
>unwanted child is better off not being born. It wrenches my heart and
>my soul to say that, but it's how I feel. Abortion as birth control is
>a horrid practice -- birth control for birth control is the way to go.
>
> From a religious POV, when I was practicing LDS, I believed that the
>spirit enters the body at the moment of conception,
I've known this LDS belief for quite some time. It makes me wonder
why LDS are so Pro-life.
Sometimes, we have to stand back and look at the moral implications of
an action and take a stand. It has not failed me in the past.
>>> 4) Opposition to certain types of scientific and medical research. Stem
>>> cell research is the big one here, followed by human cloning. Very
>>> controversial issues to be sure, not gonna dig into them for now, just
>>> listing them because you asked. AGW of course, and related to that
>>> renewable energy.
>>
>> Good, I don't really have any hard opinion to these issues anyway.
>> other than AGW.
>>
>>> That should keep us busy for a while. I do actually want to get back
>>> into the AGW science with you a bit, because I've done quite a bit of
>>> reading over the past few days, and that really is my primary interest
>>> at the moment. But I'm always open to chat about whatever as long as
>>> you are.
>>
>> Great.
>>
>> I enjoy it, as long as I have the time to respond. I travel a fair
>> amount, so lapses in response can occur occasionally.
>>
>
>Eh, I used to travel 100% for work, until getting laid off. I know the
>life.
I used to be on the road about 50% of the time. Either attending
conferences, trade shows or to a customers location.
I've forceably dropped that down to around 10 - 20%. life is much
better.
Logan
humoresque
What do the people on the northeast coast have to say?
John Manning
It's cold outside today, so that means that global warming is false?
Climate Denial Crock of the Week- "It's cold. So there's no Climate Change"
Xan Du
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:54:31 -0400, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Logan Sacket wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:12:48 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Trust me I know. Suffice to say, I don't think all Christians are
>> silly, but silly people who happen to be Christian, well ... it can be
>> hazardous ground. I can respect the beliefs of those who can respect
>> mine. How's that?
>
> Fine with me, I have no problem hanging around with people that I
> don't agree with all the time.
Same.
> I find it extemely sad that ex-Mormons, as well as other false
> religions, leave and become aitheists. I can certainly understand how
> that betrayal can be directed at God who (I believe does exist) but
> was really a created false religion and not by any means Christian.
False according to what objective frame of reference?
<snip>
>>> Certainly valid points. Having worked in industries that supported
>>> defense contractors, I can see big problems all over the place. It
>>> is an extremetly difficult business that is heavily weighted in
>>> politics. A defence company can spend millions of dollars on a
>>> proposal, just to have the government either cancel the program,
>>> change it in such a way that you are no longer a candiate or that they
>>> already have the supplier selected, when they only needed you to bid
>>> so it goes through the open bid process.
>> This is how we end up with $100,000 toilets right? I kid a bit here --
>> I just need a chuckle today.
>
> Well, you can bet that if the hammer costs $100, then it is because
> the govenment wanted it just that way. Oh, you said toilets. Well,
> the Indian blood in me can't quite grasp that.
LOL, Amerindian or Indian Indian?
>>> For instance, I have a small business in my garage. This is in
>>> addition to my day job in industry. I could easliy expand, but to do
>>> so, I would have employ workers, either part time or full time. But
>>> the added burden of accounting, taxes (social security, unemployment,
>>> labor rules and possible health care issues) is holding me back.
>>> Would this create jobs? Yes. But the government is again standing in
>>> the way.
>> Obama's tax incentives for small/medium businesses is lip service then?
>> This is an honest question.
>
> No, it's not lip service, it exists. But again, it doesn't create the
> underlying reason for hiring someone.
The underlying reason for hiring someone is to get economic gain from
their labor. Why doesn't reducing the cost of that labor help?
> What it does is take the
> people's money and again gives it to someone else to do something the
> government want, and not what would naturally happen in a health
> economy.
Ok, what would you do then?
>> Also, I have a theory that eliminating payroll taxes and corporate taxes
>> altogether, with corresponding hikes in personal income taxes might be
>> something to think about. I know your feelings on flat taxation would
>> be an immediate objection, but any other thoughts?
>
> I'm not sure I understand. Is the object to have people pay their
> taxes out of pocket instead of through payroll deductions?
>
> Yea, that would work alright.
I've been kicking around the idea that all corporate taxes should be
eliminated altogether, and offset by a simplified progressive income
tax. The niggle here is that so many US-based corporations generate
taxable revenue overseas. I haven't run any numbers on this btw, just
thinking out loud.
<snip>
>>>> 3) Civil rights issues. My issue du jour is same sex marriage. I would
>>>> also lump into this category abortion rights, recreational drug use,
>>>> federal wiretapping abuses under the Patriot Act, suspension of habeus
>>>> corpus and torture of terror suspects, and the death penalty.
>>> These moral issues are things that are mostly part of my upbringing.
>>> Same sex marriage is an oxymoron to me. I have no problem with
>>> persons of the same sex wanting to live together, but why should we
>>> call it marriage? It's not. That type of union does not physically
>>> allow for offspring. Yes, it is not the traditional type of family
>>> where the couple mates, so to speak. Therefore why is it marriage?
>>> It's simply companionship.
>> This has been a big topic on alt.religion.mormon, which I understand you
>> don't normally participate in, but Mr. Manning's cross-posting habits
>> brought you here. Your POV makes a lot of sense to me, but there's a
>> civil liberties issue here that trumps all that in my mind. I consider
>> my position on the issue pretty well-balanced -- too balanced apparently
>> for some folk. We've had a pretty nasty fight here about it, and I got
>> shot to hell in it, including probably shooting myself in the foot --
>> it's hard to be the guy taking the middle road in such a fight, but I
>> felt someone had to do it.
>
> By being a moderate, your certainly under attack by both sides.
That's putting it mildly.
> I have not been following that thread,
It's degenerated into a personal bloodbath over animosities going back 6
years or more. But it's turning around a bit. I'm actually talking law
now with Zootal, one of the LDS-apologists who supported Prop. 8. There
is hope for ARM yet.
> but in my view, any morality we
> have is not a natural state state of fallen man. I really don't care
> to expand much on that either.
Fair 'nuff.
>>> Abortion - Being a Christian, I have no manueverability in this issue.
>>> It is taking the life of an unborn person, whom God knew in the womb.
>> My best friend from high school is a very conservative atheist. He
>> feels the same as you do on this issue. My position is different, of
>> course, and we've had some genuinely good discussions about it. It's a
>> hard hard issue for me to have a position on -- my parents were not
>> married when I was conceived for one thing -- but it's again a civil
>> liberties issue for me. Really a tough issue, this one, a dilemma for
>> me no doubt, so I try to be thoughtful about my position.
>>
>> One like-minded fellow on ARM points out that conservatives oppose
>> abortion, but also oppose child support from the resulting births. It
>> really turns his crank. I myself have not validated his argument, so
>> I'll throw that question to you if you have a ready answer for it.
>
> I have been under the impression that there is no lack of wanting
> parents with adoptive services if one wants to carry to term.
Rich Measures, an ex-Republican, contends that contemporary Republicans
don't support child care for mothers who wish to keep their children,
meaning that many of them would be forced to give them up for adoption.
If women were not allowed to have an abortion, that would tend to load
up the orphanages even more, and if they don't have funding, those
children will suffer.
So, from a theistic position, this may be according to plan. From an
atheist's POV, it seems unusually cruel.
>>> Drug use - it's a bad thing. It promotes homelessness, family
>>> problems, dependency on a substance that will ruin or shorten most
>>> lives and provides a disconnect from reality. Ultimatly drags down
>>> society.
>> My very quick answer to that, again respecting your position to the
>> utmost, is that alcohol and tobacco are both legal drugs that do the
>> very same thing. My position is that were certain drugs legal, the net
>> benefit to society would be increased tax revenues (to squander on
>> welfare, of course). I'd rather the gov't have the money to spend on
>> treatment programs than criminal enterprises to spend on guns and SUVs.
>
> All are addictive and certainly come with their problems. The problem
> is that they will always be with us. Legalizing them will only expand
> their use. How can that be a good thing?
The view I subscribe to is that drug use is a demand-side problem being
fought with a supply-side strategy. Assuming this is indeed the case,
basic economics and simple logic suggest:
1) With lower supply and constant demand, prices go up.
2) Production of illegal goods implies poor quality control and
therefore higher hazards.
3) Illegal markets benefit only criminal entrepreneurs, which because of
(1) get richer than they ought to and because of (2) endanger more
people than just with the guns they can buy with their drug money.
4) Illegal markets are not taxed, meaning the cost of interdiction and
incarceration are not offset by tax revenue, having a net deficit effect
on government budgets.
Would usage go up? Maybe so, but not so much as people might think.
Like AGW, it is highly politicized, poorly understood, and a lot of fear
and loathing on either side -- and in Las Vegas. :P
Also, I read an article in the SF Tribune once that stated that drug
treatment programs (which could be funded directly by drug tax revenues)
are dollar-for-dollar more effective in reducing *demand* for drugs than
incarceration.
Whatever you want to believe, bear in mind that interdiction will
*never* have an effect on demand, only *supply*. That makes the
criminals *richer*.
> It is a large questions and I haven't really thought about it in
> years now.
Well, I hit ya' with it.
>>> The big issue I see with the rest is national security and the loss of
>>> rights for citizens. As I see it there is no line in the sand that
>>> can satisfy both objectives. War is war and somehow we need to have
>>> means to protect ourselves. I feel inadequate to even take a side
>>> here because I don't have a firm stand. One could argue from both
>>> sides of the street and not provide a solution.
>> Very well put. One of my main issues with the far left camp is that
>> they seem to be disconnected from the reality of what it means to be a
>> superpower. They live in a secure nation in very nice houses, driving
>> well-made C02 emitting cars, and purchase cheap trinkets made in China
>> just the same as y'all conservative types do. I want to strangle them
>> sometimes.
>
> Gosh I can't remember what the subject of this was...
Left wing politicians being lying stealing corrupt colluding bastards.
I'm glad you're starting to forget that.
<snip>
>> Of course who decides is the key. I don't like slippery slope arguments
>> -- they're fallacious for the most part. This one, it's just to
>> dangerous a road to go down. Non-partisan experts claim that it's just
>> ineffective. I can tell you that if you put Osama bin Laden in a room
>> with me, I'd be happy to have you hold him while I beat the living tar
>> out of him, and then trade positions while you whomped on him until he
>> was dead. Going there is a moral hazard. Maybe maybe maybe IF there
>> was a ticking bomb somewhere and the guy knew where it was, dunk his
>> head in the toilet a few times and flush until he gives up the location.
>> Other suspects, sleep deprivation, "truth" drugs, I can go along with
>> some of this. But waterboarding? Right out for most cases sez me.
>
> Just a quick note on this.
> Once we publically start limiting our methods of extracting
> information, we can suffer dramatically. Sometimes as you can
> imagine, it is the subtle things that count the most.
> Water boarding is not a physical, but a psychological method of
> getting someone to open up. I'm for leaving the door wide open on
> this.
A lot of psychologists and other professionals without clear political
ties have testified that waterboarding victims think they're going to
die, and that this constitutes torture.
Doubting what professional scientists and researchers who are at the top
of their fields is a really disconcerting habit of yours, and it shows
that you're more concerned about preserving your political ideologies
rather than seeking truth.
>>> I don't really care if there is or is not a death penalty or not.
>>> However, if there is not, then why the abortion stance?
>> I have a similar problem with folks who are pro-death penalty and
>> anti-abortion. Touchy subject, more detail below.
>
> I see it difficult to equate the two. One is for one who is going to
> start life and the other is for someone who took life.
An adult has many more social relationships than an unborn human. From
a humanist point of view, the greater sin is to put to death a person
who has formed social relationships than with one who has not yet formed
a relationship with anyone.
Now that's horrifying calculus to someone who has other religious
beliefs, or a different perspective ... but that's my perspective. It
was not easy for me to arrive at that conclusion because putting anyone
to death is a horrible thing.
>>> Do you have
>>> an reservations of whether or not a human actually exists while in the
>>> womb?
>> A more than fair question, and I will not dodge it. I think that an
>> unwanted child is better off not being born. It wrenches my heart and
>> my soul to say that, but it's how I feel. Abortion as birth control is
>> a horrid practice -- birth control for birth control is the way to go.
>>
>> From a religious POV, when I was practicing LDS, I believed that the
>> spirit enters the body at the moment of conception,
>
> I've known this LDS belief for quite some time. It makes me wonder
> why LDS are so Pro-life.
Because they believe that each spirit only gets one chance for physical
life on earth. Abortion denies that chance, stunting their eternal
progress, but not eliminating it. Unborn children, and children who die
before age 8 get a free pass to the highest kingdom of heaven, though,
so it does seem a bit ... inconsistent I guess. It's one of a few
hundred such inconsistencies I know about with LDS-dom.
<snip>
>> Again, I cannot stress enough how divided I am on this, but it's one I
>> took care to take a stance on, and I think it's as nuanced and
>> well-thought through as I can possibly be on such a contentious and
>> morally hazardous issue.
>
> Sometimes, we have to stand back and look at the moral implications of
> an action and take a stand. It has not failed me in the past.
And it depends on whose moral code you're using. I do the same thing,
but because I have different morals, I make different decisions. That
doesn't make me amoral. (And that is a big fight going on in the Prop.
8 thread between me and Duwayne.)
<snip>
>> Eh, I used to travel 100% for work, until getting laid off. I know the
>> life.
>
> I used to be on the road about 50% of the time. Either attending
> conferences, trade shows or to a customers location.
>
> I've forceably dropped that down to around 10 - 20%. life is much
> better.
>
> Logan
I've dropped to zero work at all. Good to be off the road, but not good
to be burning tax dollars ... of course, I *did* pay into that account,
so I don't mind so much withdrawing from it.
Cheers, Logan.
-Xan
last_winter_was_cold
I believe you'll find many climate skeptics living on the east coast.
John Manning
last_winter_was_cold
Believe the experts instead of your lying senses.
John Manning
The vast body of evidence for anthropogenic (human caused) global
warming gathered over decades and published in tens of thousands of
peer-reviewed research papers from legitimately credentialed
professional scientists from all over the world overwhelming speaks for
itself.
One needs to be a little bit smarter than a box of rocks to be able to
appreciate that the overall global warming trend is not the same as
fluctuating immediate local weather conditions.
Here's another different video lesson for the slow learners - - -
It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming - Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc
Logan Sacket
>Logan Sacket wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:54:31 -0400, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Logan Sacket wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:12:48 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Trust me I know. Suffice to say, I don't think all Christians are
>>> silly, but silly people who happen to be Christian, well ... it can be
>>> hazardous ground. I can respect the beliefs of those who can respect
>>> mine. How's that?
>>
>> Fine with me, I have no problem hanging around with people that I
>> don't agree with all the time.
>
>Same.
>
>> I find it extemely sad that ex-Mormons, as well as other false
>> religions, leave and become aitheists. I can certainly understand how
>> that betrayal can be directed at God who (I believe does exist) but
>> was really a created false religion and not by any means Christian.
>
>False according to what objective frame of reference?
"If Christianity is not superior to other religions, then it just may
as well join hands on equal terms as their friend and ally in a common
cause".
Professor D.S. Sama
><snip>
>
>>>> Certainly valid points. Having worked in industries that supported
>>>> defense contractors, I can see big problems all over the place. It
>>>> is an extremetly difficult business that is heavily weighted in
>>>> politics. A defence company can spend millions of dollars on a
>>>> proposal, just to have the government either cancel the program,
>>>> change it in such a way that you are no longer a candiate or that they
>>>> already have the supplier selected, when they only needed you to bid
>>>> so it goes through the open bid process.
>
>>> This is how we end up with $100,000 toilets right? I kid a bit here --
>>> I just need a chuckle today.
>>
>> Well, you can bet that if the hammer costs $100, then it is because
>> the govenment wanted it just that way. Oh, you said toilets. Well,
>> the Indian blood in me can't quite grasp that.
>
>LOL, Amerindian or Indian Indian?
American.
>>>> For instance, I have a small business in my garage. This is in
>>>> addition to my day job in industry. I could easliy expand, but to do
>>>> so, I would have employ workers, either part time or full time. But
>>>> the added burden of accounting, taxes (social security, unemployment,
>>>> labor rules and possible health care issues) is holding me back.
>>>> Would this create jobs? Yes. But the government is again standing in
>>>> the way.
>>> Obama's tax incentives for small/medium businesses is lip service then?
>>> This is an honest question.
>>
>> No, it's not lip service, it exists. But again, it doesn't create the
>> underlying reason for hiring someone.
>
>The underlying reason for hiring someone is to get economic gain from
>their labor. Why doesn't reducing the cost of that labor help?
Yes it can help, but you have the have the customers for the service
or product you provide. Stimulating the economy with tax cuts for
example is better than stimulating the government. Employers are less
likely to hire someone for a one time short term spike.
>> What it does is take the
>> people's money and again gives it to someone else to do something the
>> government want, and not what would naturally happen in a health
>> economy.
>
>Ok, what would you do then?
Give people their money back. More money in the pocket of the
consumer, that puts goods in the marketplace and starts a chain
reaction of money flow. Giving money to hire someone only increases
the national debt and doesn't have nearly the impact.
>>> Also, I have a theory that eliminating payroll taxes and corporate taxes
>>> altogether, with corresponding hikes in personal income taxes might be
>>> something to think about. I know your feelings on flat taxation would
>>> be an immediate objection, but any other thoughts?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand. Is the object to have people pay their
>> taxes out of pocket instead of through payroll deductions?
>>
>> Yea, that would work alright.
>
>I've been kicking around the idea that all corporate taxes should be
>eliminated altogether, and offset by a simplified progressive income
>tax. The niggle here is that so many US-based corporations generate
>taxable revenue overseas. I haven't run any numbers on this btw, just
>thinking out loud.
Yes, I agree with you. That would stimulatet the economy for sure.
Corporations would not have near the incentive to move off shore
either. That brings real longer term jobs to the workforce.
That sounds like a moral delema for even an atheist.
Is it moral to abort or is it more moral to work to spend the same
energy to provide a good home for unwanted children?
Those are all valid points. Are you in favor of drug users being able
to drive a car?
Then again, I'm not sure that legalizing drug use is a moral thing.
I think the government will eventually legalize it. It will provide
another tax vehicle.
>> It is a large questions and I haven't really thought about it in
>> years now.
>
>Well, I hit ya' with it.
>
>>>> The big issue I see with the rest is national security and the loss of
>>>> rights for citizens. As I see it there is no line in the sand that
>>>> can satisfy both objectives. War is war and somehow we need to have
>>>> means to protect ourselves. I feel inadequate to even take a side
>>>> here because I don't have a firm stand. One could argue from both
>>>> sides of the street and not provide a solution.
>>> Very well put. One of my main issues with the far left camp is that
>>> they seem to be disconnected from the reality of what it means to be a
>>> superpower. They live in a secure nation in very nice houses, driving
>>> well-made C02 emitting cars, and purchase cheap trinkets made in China
>>> just the same as y'all conservative types do. I want to strangle them
>>> sometimes.
>>
>> Gosh I can't remember what the subject of this was...
>
>Left wing politicians being lying stealing corrupt colluding bastards.
>I'm glad you're starting to forget that.
I'm was in denial. My emotional response blocked the fact that we
have such a corrupt goverment and is bankrupting the economy.
Did you know that February government spending with over 1/2 a
Trillion dollars? How is that sustainable?
Ack, it's happening again.
><snip>
>
>>> Of course who decides is the key. I don't like slippery slope arguments
>>> -- they're fallacious for the most part. This one, it's just to
>>> dangerous a road to go down. Non-partisan experts claim that it's just
>>> ineffective. I can tell you that if you put Osama bin Laden in a room
>>> with me, I'd be happy to have you hold him while I beat the living tar
>>> out of him, and then trade positions while you whomped on him until he
>>> was dead. Going there is a moral hazard. Maybe maybe maybe IF there
>>> was a ticking bomb somewhere and the guy knew where it was, dunk his
>>> head in the toilet a few times and flush until he gives up the location.
>>> Other suspects, sleep deprivation, "truth" drugs, I can go along with
>>> some of this. But waterboarding? Right out for most cases sez me.
>>
>> Just a quick note on this.
>> Once we publically start limiting our methods of extracting
>> information, we can suffer dramatically. Sometimes as you can
>> imagine, it is the subtle things that count the most.
>> Water boarding is not a physical, but a psychological method of
>> getting someone to open up. I'm for leaving the door wide open on
>> this.
>
>A lot of psychologists and other professionals without clear political
>ties have testified that waterboarding victims think they're going to
>die, and that this constitutes torture.
Isn't that the whole point though?
>Doubting what professional scientists and researchers who are at the top
>of their fields is a really disconcerting habit of yours, and it shows
>that you're more concerned about preserving your political ideologies
>rather than seeking truth.
Things are more black and white the older I get. My politics lean
toward the free republic, working for your future and preserving that
freedom. Solutions and issues have that in mind as I ponder life.
>>>> I don't really care if there is or is not a death penalty or not.
>>>> However, if there is not, then why the abortion stance?
>>> I have a similar problem with folks who are pro-death penalty and
>>> anti-abortion. Touchy subject, more detail below.
>>
>> I see it difficult to equate the two. One is for one who is going to
>> start life and the other is for someone who took life.
>
>An adult has many more social relationships than an unborn human. From
>a humanist point of view, the greater sin is to put to death a person
>who has formed social relationships than with one who has not yet formed
>a relationship with anyone.
Yet, denying any kind of a social relationship an infant through life
is OK ? I don't see that as a qualifier at all.
>Now that's horrifying calculus to someone who has other religious
>beliefs, or a different perspective ... but that's my perspective. It
>was not easy for me to arrive at that conclusion because putting anyone
>to death is a horrible thing.
>
>>>> Do you have
>>>> an reservations of whether or not a human actually exists while in the
>>>> womb?
>>> A more than fair question, and I will not dodge it. I think that an
>>> unwanted child is better off not being born. It wrenches my heart and
>>> my soul to say that, but it's how I feel. Abortion as birth control is
>>> a horrid practice -- birth control for birth control is the way to go.
>>>
>>> From a religious POV, when I was practicing LDS, I believed that the
>>> spirit enters the body at the moment of conception,
>>
>> I've known this LDS belief for quite some time. It makes me wonder
>> why LDS are so Pro-life.
>
>Because they believe that each spirit only gets one chance for physical
>life on earth. Abortion denies that chance, stunting their eternal
>progress, but not eliminating it.
However, if a spirit doesn't decend to the body until birth, then that
spirit will have never lost his opportunity for phyical life. They
just hop on the next train.
>Unborn children, and children who die
>before age 8 get a free pass to the highest kingdom of heaven, though,
>so it does seem a bit ... inconsistent I guess. It's one of a few
>hundred such inconsistencies I know about with LDS-dom.
Then we should not let LDS live past the age of eight. That would
surely ensure that all LDS don't miss out on eternal life. Post womb
abortion clinics for LDS. Sheesh, where am I going with this?
Then again - you did say, inconsistent.
><snip>
>
>>> Again, I cannot stress enough how divided I am on this, but it's one I
>>> took care to take a stance on, and I think it's as nuanced and
>>> well-thought through as I can possibly be on such a contentious and
>>> morally hazardous issue.
>>
>> Sometimes, we have to stand back and look at the moral implications of
>> an action and take a stand. It has not failed me in the past.
>
>And it depends on whose moral code you're using. I do the same thing,
>but because I have different morals, I make different decisions. That
>doesn't make me amoral. (And that is a big fight going on in the Prop.
>8 thread between me and Duwayne.)
Ack, I don't think I want to get started reading that one.
><snip>
>
>>> Eh, I used to travel 100% for work, until getting laid off. I know the
>>> life.
>>
>> I used to be on the road about 50% of the time. Either attending
>> conferences, trade shows or to a customers location.
>>
>> I've forceably dropped that down to around 10 - 20%. life is much
>> better.
>>
>> Logan
>
>I've dropped to zero work at all. Good to be off the road, but not good
>to be burning tax dollars ... of course, I *did* pay into that account,
>so I don't mind so much withdrawing from it.
Fortunatley I have not had that problem. My wife has been unemployed
for quite a few months now though. She is actively looking for a job,
but because of UEI (unemployment insurance), she is cherry picking at
the top of the tree.
Have a good weekend.
Antares 531
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:33:51 -0600, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>There have been many
>>such up-ticks through the past few millennia, and this one doesn't
>>seem to be significantly different from all those before it.
>
>What you are calling an up tick is an unprecedented exponential curve
>anchored in the Industrial revolution - which you would see if you
>cared to look at the data.
>
My apologies for being so late in responding. My take on this is that
the current, on-going up-tick is not nearly as pronounced as were
those that climatic changes which occurred during the time frame
15,000 down to about 9,000 years ago, when the last period of
glaciation was ending. There was a spate of very wild climatic swings
during those last few thousands of years of the latest period of
glaciation.
I'm talking about the rapid swing from the Older Dryas (Dryas 1) to
the Bölling Oscillation around 13,000 years ago, followed by a
sporadic dip back into cooler conditions until about 10,500 years ago
when the Younger Dryas swing bottomed out. Then, following this, at
the end of the Younger Dryas, the first run up of the current
interglacial warm period was a lot more rapid than the change we are
now experiencing.
Gordon
Day Brown
> My apologies for being so late in responding. My take on this is that
> the current, on-going up-tick is not nearly as pronounced as were
> those that climatic changes which occurred during the time frame
> 15,000 down to about 9,000 years ago, when the last period of
> glaciation was ending. There was a spate of very wild climatic swings
> during those last few thousands of years of the latest period of
> glaciation.
>
> I'm talking about the rapid swing from the Older Dryas (Dryas 1) to
> the Bölling Oscillation around 13,000 years ago, followed by a
> sporadic dip back into cooler conditions until about 10,500 years ago
> when the Younger Dryas swing bottomed out. Then, following this, at
> the end of the Younger Dryas, the first run up of the current
> interglacial warm period was a lot more rapid than the change we are
> now experiencing.
know how much hominid activity has caused any of this, including up to
the present day, but in any case, the climate is warming.
And no matter what the data supporting man made warming, the political
reality is that nothing effective will really be done because of
perceived harm to economic interests.
Your only option will be to vote with your feet; or a U-Haul, to
whatever area you think has the population and management to respond
most appropriately to the changes, leaving the GW deniers to sit on
their hands and suffer the consequences of even local inaction.
If we look back at the climate changes you refer to, we can see some
areas suffered while others benefited. And while the sea level may not
raise as some say, there's no doubt the cost of flood insurance will.
And if it warms as much as some say, then its time to invest in Hudson
bay beachfront. Already agribusiness has invested and profited from
growing potatoes and rye in the Yukon on what had been permafrost.
Logan Sacket
OK, who let JM in here ?
Xan Du
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:29:33 -0300, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>> last_winter_was_cold wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 7:45 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
>>>> ... FACT:
<snip impressive list of truth-tellers>
>>>> - - - "FACT" organizations come from "Is There a Scientific Consensus on
>>>> Global Warming?" at:http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>>> I believe you'll find many climate skeptics living on the east coast.
>>
>> Climate Denial Crock of the Week- "It's cold. So there's no Climate Change"
>>
>> Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM
>>
>
> OK, who let JM in here ?
Where IS "here" for you? I'm talking from alt.atheism, myself. He's
been cross-posting here for a while I think. But I don't think he
actually reads it ... he prefers to slum around in alt.religion.mormon
where the pickins' are easier.
If I talk enough shit about him though, we'll see if that's not true I
guess. I think I'm still plonked, but ya' never know.
-Xan
Antares 531
wrote:
Right on, Day, but there is one more point I would like to make. We
have no way of knowing when the next dip back into a cold period of
glaciation might get under way. Those earlier climate oscillations
typically ended in a sharp swing back into much colder conditions.
That could happen again, this time, I would think.
Gordon
Logan Sacket
I'm "officially" whatever that means, in alt.religion.mormon
I was plonked quite a while ago. I continue to enjoy my rite of
passage.
What he misses though, is that when someone responds to him he doesn't
see it. So when someone challenges him, he acts like a spoiled child
caught in a lie and runs away with a wimper.
Day Brown
> Right on, Day, but there is one more point I would like to make. We
> have no way of knowing when the next dip back into a cold period of
> glaciation might get under way. Those earlier climate oscillations
> typically ended in a sharp swing back into much colder conditions.
> That could happen again, this time, I would think.
not have all the important inputs. "GIGO" comes to mind.
But I am glad to be living in the Southern Ozarks- which the ice never
got to, well above sea level, and the tropics aint been here either
since the start of the Ice Ages.
Then too, when a system is as marvelously complex and efficient as this,
it is also subject to some unforeseen input that totally crashes it. As
a result, young people keep coming by, or staying a while, to see how I
cope with what we have here.
Xan Du
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:26:01 -0400, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Logan Sacket wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:29:33 -0300, John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>> last_winter_was_cold wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 6, 7:45 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a
>>>>>> ... FACT:
>> <snip impressive list of truth-tellers>
>>
>>>>>> - - - "FACT" organizations come from "Is There a Scientific Consensus on
>>>>>> Global Warming?" at:http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>>>>> I believe you'll find many climate skeptics living on the east coast.
>>>> Climate Denial Crock of the Week- "It's cold. So there's no Climate Change"
>>>>
>>>> Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM
>>>>
>>> OK, who let JM in here ?
>> Where IS "here" for you? I'm talking from alt.atheism, myself. He's
>> been cross-posting here for a while I think. But I don't think he
>> actually reads it ... he prefers to slum around in alt.religion.mormon
>> where the pickins' are easier.
>>
>> If I talk enough shit about him though, we'll see if that's not true I
>> guess. I think I'm still plonked, but ya' never know.
>>
>> -Xan
>
> I'm "officially" whatever that means, in alt.religion.mormon
Why that group, Logan?
> I was plonked quite a while ago. I continue to enjoy my rite of
> passage.
I have decided I like it as well. My whole fight with him started 8
years ago and culminated with me deciding to just nuke him and be done
with it.
I agree with many of his positions, but detest his methods. I can only
imagine how you feel about him.
> What he misses though, is that when someone responds to him he doesn't
> see it. So when someone challenges him, he acts like a spoiled child
> caught in a lie and runs away with a wimper.
I hit him very hard. He did not go down easily -- but I wasn't going to
come out in a weak position. It was not my finest moment on Usenet but
I was just tired of his shit. And it taught me to not fear. That was
the important thing.
Cheers,
Xan
Logan Sacket
No particular reason, I have a few LDS friends and was interested in
more information and discussions about it. That proved not the be
the case on arm.
>
>> I was plonked quite a while ago. I continue to enjoy my rite of
>> passage.
>
>I have decided I like it as well. My whole fight with him started 8
>years ago and culminated with me deciding to just nuke him and be done
>with it.
>
>I agree with many of his positions, but detest his methods. I can only
>imagine how you feel about him.
>
>> What he misses though, is that when someone responds to him he doesn't
>> see it. So when someone challenges him, he acts like a spoiled child
>> caught in a lie and runs away with a wimper.
>
>I hit him very hard. He did not go down easily -- but I wasn't going to
>come out in a weak position. It was not my finest moment on Usenet but
>I was just tired of his shit. And it taught me to not fear. That was
>the important thing.
Clearly, he doesn't like to be questioned.
When he doesn't have an answer, he just starts calling names.
Xan Du
lol. Yes, it's not the same place. Part of me burning Manning is that
he's completely run off all the devout LDS, so we critics have no one of
real substance to argue with, and turned it into his personal political
playground. I know the LDS doctrines inside out, ask me your questions
if you'd like.
>>> I was plonked quite a while ago. I continue to enjoy my rite of
>>> passage.
>> I have decided I like it as well. My whole fight with him started 8
>> years ago and culminated with me deciding to just nuke him and be done
>> with it.
>>
>> I agree with many of his positions, but detest his methods. I can only
>> imagine how you feel about him.
>>
>>> What he misses though, is that when someone responds to him he doesn't
>>> see it. So when someone challenges him, he acts like a spoiled child
>>> caught in a lie and runs away with a wimper.
>> I hit him very hard. He did not go down easily -- but I wasn't going to
>> come out in a weak position. It was not my finest moment on Usenet but
>> I was just tired of his shit. And it taught me to not fear. That was
>> the important thing.
>
> Clearly, he doesn't like to be questioned.
> When he doesn't have an answer, he just starts calling names.
He's changed for the worse since I first met him. I very much hope to
not become that by the time I'm his age.
-Xan
Logan Sacket
I really don't have any questions, but I was mostly interested in
listening in. I have read quite a bit and have had many many nights
of debate with LDS. It seems that nothing is really convincing
against logic and truth when you have a modern day prophet.
>>>> I was plonked quite a while ago. I continue to enjoy my rite of
>>>> passage.
>>> I have decided I like it as well. My whole fight with him started 8
>>> years ago and culminated with me deciding to just nuke him and be done
>>> with it.
>>>
>>> I agree with many of his positions, but detest his methods. I can only
>>> imagine how you feel about him.
>>>
>>>> What he misses though, is that when someone responds to him he doesn't
>>>> see it. So when someone challenges him, he acts like a spoiled child
>>>> caught in a lie and runs away with a wimper.
>>> I hit him very hard. He did not go down easily -- but I wasn't going to
>>> come out in a weak position. It was not my finest moment on Usenet but
>>> I was just tired of his shit. And it taught me to not fear. That was
>>> the important thing.
>>
>> Clearly, he doesn't like to be questioned.
>> When he doesn't have an answer, he just starts calling names.
>
>He's changed for the worse since I first met him. I very much hope to
>not become that by the time I'm his age.
For sure, he is past the comfort level. I sometimes wonder if he
isn't an ex-representitive or something.
Xan Du
Mormonism is a special case in that category. They're also saddled with
the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham (in the Pearl of Great Price)
that have been shown to contain abundant historical anachronisms through
archeology, mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome marker studies, and
Egyptology.
The only other stronger case for true Christianity IMO comes from the
Catholic Church, having been around pretty much the longest, and having
a Pope that is more or less supposed to be infallible.
So that leaves us with everybody else. How do you use logic and truth
to decide which Christian sect is correct? Does it matter?
>>>>> I was plonked quite a while ago. I continue to enjoy my rite of
>>>>> passage.
>>>> I have decided I like it as well. My whole fight with him started 8
>>>> years ago and culminated with me deciding to just nuke him and be done
>>>> with it.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with many of his positions, but detest his methods. I can only
>>>> imagine how you feel about him.
>>>>
>>>>> What he misses though, is that when someone responds to him he doesn't
>>>>> see it. So when someone challenges him, he acts like a spoiled child
>>>>> caught in a lie and runs away with a wimper.
>>>> I hit him very hard. He did not go down easily -- but I wasn't going to
>>>> come out in a weak position. It was not my finest moment on Usenet but
>>>> I was just tired of his shit. And it taught me to not fear. That was
>>>> the important thing.
>>> Clearly, he doesn't like to be questioned.
>>> When he doesn't have an answer, he just starts calling names.
>> He's changed for the worse since I first met him. I very much hope to
>> not become that by the time I'm his age.
>
> For sure, he is past the comfort level. I sometimes wonder if he
> isn't an ex-representitive or something.
He has a marketing background. It shows. Rich Measures knows more
about his past details.
He also lived in Utah for 30 years and hated it. Utah LDS are not the
best example of decent Mormon folk -- most of the guys I didn't like on
my mission were from Utah. Of course, most of the missionaries in my
mission were *from* Utah, but I think I'm adjusting perception for that
adequately enough.
Cheers,
Xan
Day Brown
> He also lived in Utah for 30 years and hated it. Utah LDS are not the
> best example of decent Mormon folk -- most of the guys I didn't like on
> my mission were from Utah. Of course, most of the missionaries in my
> mission were *from* Utah, but I think I'm adjusting perception for that
> adequately enough.
Christianity supplied a framework supposedly for that. The rational way
to deal with it is to point out this fact. No tribe of hominids would
have survived without some instinctively looking out for the general
welfare.
But pose the Stoic question of how long you want the good to be good
for. Feeding the starving babies increased tribal populations to the
levels where their own traditional lifestyles in their own ecosystems
can no longer support the numbers.
Had they supplied birth control to the mothers while feeding the babies,
the number of starving would be far less. But they didnt because of "Be
fruitful and multiply." Well, we've been there and done that. What now?
Archeology used forensic tools to show the skeletons in the slave graves
after Christianization were in WORSE CONDITION. Apparently, the slave
drivers figured, that if Jesus was going to reward the slaves in heaven
for all their labors, there was no need to do so on Earth.
Stoicism picks up on unintended consequences. Christianity didnt. Stoic
philosophy shows how to do good better than either Christianity or
atheism. Good people will pick up on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqvXxoOqOvM a song based on Stoicism.