Why Climate Change Science Is So Threatening to Right-Wing Ideologues
Unum
"But something very different is going on on the right, and I
think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
seen as such a threat? I don’t believe it’s an unreasonable
fear. I think it’s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
making up the science. They’re not. It’s not a hoax. But
actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
ardger
"Unum" <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
>
> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> seen as such a threat?
Mythical Manmade Warming is not a threat, but the thick-headed army of
socialist, leftist zealots is a threat!
> I don’t believe it’s an unreasonable
> fear. I think it’s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> making up the science. They’re not. It’s not a hoax.
Oh yes it is!
JUDGE THESE “SCIENTISTS” BY THEIR ACTIONS!
First we had the IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where
lead author Benjamin D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by
genuine scientists, and without the scientists being made aware of these
changes.
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in
greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
Then we have some choice quotes from so-called “consensus scientists”.
"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to
beat the crap out of him."
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
[Referring to global warming skeptic Pat Michaels]
“I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for
Keith's to hide the decline.”
Phil Jones email, 16 Nov 1999
“The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been
after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom
of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than
send to anyone.”
Phil Jones email, Feb 2 2005
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and
I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
[cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment,
and it is a travesty that we can't …there should be even more warming... the
data are surely wrong".
Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, US Centre for Atmospheric Research
“...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t
being political, it is being selfish. “
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
“We have to get rid of the Mediæval Warm Period” Confided to geophysicist
David Deming by the IPCC, 1995
[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck who mistakenly thought he was
talking to a fellow warmist, which Prof Deming didn’t deny in an email
response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author.]
“We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
“I tried the same run [Fourier Transform] on the CRU global temperature set.
Even though CRU must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are
worked out, the 11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of
Sydney’s.”
[E-mail from Dr Daly 9 August 1996. Dr Daly uncovered an eleven-year signal
in the temperature data set from the island of Tasmania. It is clear from
the tone of his e-mail that he considers this obvious solar influence on
climate as unwelcome news.]
"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they
were talking about their role as lead authors for the IPCC. And they were
talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the
US would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol."
Dr John Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville on CNN May 2 2007.
”We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” Professor Stephen
Schneider
“Humans need a common motivation ... either a real one or else one invented
for the purpose. ... In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by
human intervention so the real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Club of Rome
declaration
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is
true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991
Now what conclusion would a rational and sceptical person come to?
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman
of the George C. Marshall Institute, summed it up nicely after seeing the
changes made to the IPCC report.
“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
report.”
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
Unum
> "Unum"<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
>>
>> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
>> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
>> seen as such a threat?
>
>
> Mythical Manmade Warming is not a threat, but the thick-headed army of
> socialist, leftist zealots is a threat!
Bozo shows us so clearly that climate change threatens his world view.
Giga2
"Unum" <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
>
polarized political debates, where they have very strong culture wars."
It is happening in those countries with the most mature understanding of the
so-called science, and probably the most informed/educated public with the
best access to the internet.
"Democrats overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Their position hasn’t
changed. Republicans now don’t"
This may be true in the US but not the UK or Oz necessarily. I can see where
this article is going...
"...because what it means is that it no longer really has anything to do
with the science."
I was right. "It isn't the 'science'." That is true in a way because CAGW
can hardly be called science. However the problem is the propaganda and
nightmare-fantasy that passes for climate-science.
"...most of the big green groups are loath to talk about economics and often
don’t want to see themselves as being part of a left at all, see climate
change as an issue that transcends politics entirely."
Of course they don't want to talk about economics because as soon as they do
their 'solutions' are seen for what they are disasters in waiting. And *of
course* they don't see themselves as Marxists, they think they right
dead-centre in the middle ground of the pure-truth, with no political bias.
That just happens to be where Marx was as well, if only those silly Repugs
could see this obvious truth. Lol.
"...you would have to redistribute wealth, which is also against their
ideology."
Why is against so many people's ideology? Because it doesn't work. You
cannot redistribute wealth because it is something people must make for
themselves. Wealth is not just an external state but also an internal state
which includes, money management, frugality, budgeting, regular working etc
etc. You *can* try to distribute opportunity, but this is no easy thing, and
takes time.
"You would have to subsidize renewable energy, which also breaks their
worldview."
No, subsidies and tax breaks ave been part of the free-enterprise system all
along. And this is happening.
"You would have to have a really strong United Nations, because individual
countries can’t do this alone. You absolutely have to have a strong
international architecture"
Yes you do, but some people think market forces are a much stronger
'international architecture' than a bunch of UN aparachicks. Once renewables
are competitive on price they will be adopted, and massively.
"OK, I accept that my whole worldview is going to fall apart,"
So now who is dreaming about political ideologies. Does this writer really
think CAGW is going to turn everyone Marxist. LOL.
Anyway enough prpaganda bashing for now, hahahahaha
matt_sykes
> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
>
> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
If GW CC CGD CC is a threat to the right, doesnt that mean its a
product of the left?
Unum
Didn't read the article did you.
tunderbar
> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
>
> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
Because they are anti-science and pro "end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it"
propaganda.
Dawlish
He didn't read the article, for sure.
Michael Dobony
You can call it science all you want, but AGW methodology is in total
violation of the scientific method. Any are area would call for the
elimination of these conclusions due to improper analysis of the type of
research utilized. Start utilizing the universally accepted scientific
method and maybe you will get some attention. Until then, all you have been
using is bully tactics. That is NOT science. Science demands the OPEN
exchange of ideas. You condemn it. Science demands challenge. You blacklist
challengers without examining the scientific method behind it. Until AGW
starts utilizing the Scientific method it is NOT science.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:57:28 -0600, Unum wrote:
> > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
>
> > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > seen as such a threat? I don¢t believe it¢s an unreasonable
> > fear. I think it¢s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > making up the science. They¢re not. It¢s not a hoax. But
> > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
>
> You can call it science all you want, but AGW methodology is in total
> violation of the scientific method.
You, sir, are a liar.
>Any are area would call for the
> elimination of these conclusions due to improper analysis of the type of
> research utilized.
And a nutter.
> Start utilizing the universally accepted scientific
> method and maybe you will get some attention. Until then, all you have been
> using is bully tactics. That is NOT science. Science demands the OPEN
> exchange of ideas.
If they have something behind them. No biologist exchanges ideas with
a creationist. No geologist with someone claiming the earth is 6000
years old. No chemist with an alchemist, no astronomer with an
astrologer.
>You condemn it. Science demands challenge. You blacklist
> challengers without examining the scientific method behind it. Until AGW
> starts utilizing the Scientific method it is NOT science.
You should really learn what science is.
Unum
> "Unum"<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
>>
> "It’s not happening everywhere. It’s happening in countries that have very
> polarized political debates, where they have very strong culture wars."
>
> It is happening in those countries with the most mature understanding of the
> so-called science, and probably the most informed/educated public with the
> best access to the internet.
Doesn't explain how fewer people even believe that "climate change is real"
despite the clear evidence they can see around them. This has nothing to
do with access to the internet or the science.
> "Democrats overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Their position hasn’t
> changed. Republicans now don’t"
>
> This may be true in the US but not the UK or Oz necessarily. I can see where
> this article is going...
>
> "...because what it means is that it no longer really has anything to do
> with the science."
>
> I was right. "It isn't the 'science'." That is true in a way because CAGW
> can hardly be called science. However the problem is the propaganda and
> nightmare-fantasy that passes for climate-science.
You are a willfully ignorant denialist, the credibility of the science
has frequently been demonstrated to you but it will never make any
difference. In fact you are one of the sad little weenies being described
in the article, climate change threatens your world view.
> "...most of the big green groups are loath to talk about economics and often
> don’t want to see themselves as being part of a left at all, see climate
> change as an issue that transcends politics entirely."
>
> Of course they don't want to talk about economics because as soon as they do
> their 'solutions' are seen for what they are disasters in waiting. And *of
> course* they don't see themselves as Marxists, they think they right
> dead-centre in the middle ground of the pure-truth, with no political bias.
> That just happens to be where Marx was as well, if only those silly Repugs
> could see this obvious truth. Lol.
There is already a disaster in the waiting, and it is beginning to play
out for us now. The solution for some people, apparently, is to shove
their head up their ass and hope the problem goes away.
> "...you would have to redistribute wealth, which is also against their
> ideology."
>
> Why is against so many people's ideology? Because it doesn't work. You
> cannot redistribute wealth because it is something people must make for
> themselves. Wealth is not just an external state but also an internal state
> which includes, money management, frugality, budgeting, regular working etc
> etc. You *can* try to distribute opportunity, but this is no easy thing, and
> takes time.
You're an idiot. 1% of the population in the US owns as much wealth
as 50% of the rest. In fact the distribution of wealth in the US is
even more skewed than in Egypt. This fact threatens the viability of
the entire economy and political system.
http://www.businesspundit.com/wealth-distribution-in-the-united-states/
> "You would have to subsidize renewable energy, which also breaks their
> worldview."
>
> No, subsidies and tax breaks ave been part of the free-enterprise system all
> along. And this is happening.
Seems a little odd that fossil fuels receive more subsidy than clean
energy doesn't it.
> "You would have to have a really strong United Nations, because individual
> countries can’t do this alone. You absolutely have to have a strong
> international architecture"
>
> Yes you do, but some people think market forces are a much stronger
> 'international architecture' than a bunch of UN aparachicks. Once renewables
> are competitive on price they will be adopted, and massively.
I don't see you as having any credibility on this whatsoever. There's
no such thing as a "free market", particularly where energy production
is concerned.
> "OK, I accept that my whole worldview is going to fall apart,"
>
> So now who is dreaming about political ideologies. Does this writer really
> think CAGW is going to turn everyone Marxist. LOL.
>
> Anyway enough prpaganda bashing for now, hahahahaha
Moron!
gordo
wrote:
Giga did and even tries to constructivly debate the matter.Thats 1 out
of 3 so far.
Dawlish
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:57:28 -0600, Unum wrote:
> > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
>
> > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> > fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
>
> You can call it science all you want, but AGW methodology is in total
> violation of the scientific method. Any are area would call for the
> elimination of these conclusions due to improper analysis of the type of
> research utilized. Start utilizing the universally accepted scientific
> method and maybe you will get some attention. Until then, all you have been
> using is bully tactics. That is NOT science. Science demands the OPEN
> exchange of ideas. You condemn it. Science demands challenge. You blacklist
> challengers without examining the scientific method behind it. Until AGW
> starts utilizing the Scientific method it is NOT science.
Yes...."science" dobony. What you are proposing has very little to do
with science. That's why people ignore people like you and don't give
you a platform for debate.
Quite right too.
Unum
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:57:28 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
>> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
>>
>> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
>> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
>> seen as such a threat? I don’t believe it’s an unreasonable
>> fear. I think it’s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
>> making up the science. They’re not. It’s not a hoax. But
>> actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
>> many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
>
> You can call it science all you want, but AGW methodology is in total
> violation of the scientific method. Any are area would call for the
> elimination of these conclusions due to improper analysis of the type of
> research utilized. Start utilizing the universally accepted scientific
Yeah I know, I've seen you beat this dead horse several times. Some
nitwit on the internet thinks actual scientists aren't doing it the
right way. Who cares what you think?
Hey, why did you run away from your statement the other day;
"Wind and solar are already hard to justify without hiding the
facts. Wind power is big in Texas and requires coal fired generators
to back it up when the wind is not cooperating, as it rarely does.
Solar simply has too little bang for the buck. Both have payback
periods in multiples of useful life. Translation: They cost more
than they produce!"
Let's see your numbers Mr. "it ain't science unless I say it is"!
Giga2
> On 3/10/2011 3:05 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>> "Unum"<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
>> news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>>>
>>> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
>>>
>> "It’s not happening everywhere. It’s happening in countries that have
>> very
>> polarized political debates, where they have very strong culture wars."
>>
>> It is happening in those countries with the most mature understanding of
>> the
>> so-called science, and probably the most informed/educated public with
>> the
>> best access to the internet.
>
> Doesn't explain how fewer people even believe that "climate change is
> real"
> despite the clear evidence they can see around them. This has nothing to
> do with access to the internet or the science.
What evidence do you see all around you?
>
>> "Democrats overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Their position hasn’t
>> changed. Republicans now don’t"
>>
>> This may be true in the US but not the UK or Oz necessarily. I can see
>> where
>> this article is going...
>>
>> "...because what it means is that it no longer really has anything to do
>> with the science."
>>
>> I was right. "It isn't the 'science'." That is true in a way because CAGW
>> can hardly be called science. However the problem is the propaganda and
>> nightmare-fantasy that passes for climate-science.
>
> You are a willfully ignorant denialist, the credibility of the science
> has frequently been demonstrated to you
Not at all. I'm really not sure what you are talking about. I have often
looked at resources that I supposed to convince me but found them to be
seriously flawed as usual.
>but it will never make any
> difference. In fact you are one of the sad little weenies being described
> in the article, climate change threatens your world view.
OK, so you are just trying to attack me here. For sure BS threatens my
worldview as I tend to prefer truth.
>
>> "...most of the big green groups are loath to talk about economics and
>> often
>> don’t want to see themselves as being part of a left at all, see climate
>> change as an issue that transcends politics entirely."
>>
>> Of course they don't want to talk about economics because as soon as they
>> do
>> their 'solutions' are seen for what they are disasters in waiting. And
>> *of
>> course* they don't see themselves as Marxists, they think they right
>> dead-centre in the middle ground of the pure-truth, with no political
>> bias.
>> That just happens to be where Marx was as well, if only those silly
>> Repugs
>> could see this obvious truth. Lol.
>
> There is already a disaster in the waiting, and it is beginning to play
> out for us now. The solution for some people, apparently, is to shove
> their head up their ass and hope the problem goes away.
I think whether CAGW is a lucky guess or not the only way forward is clean,
renewable energy, so we should certainly persue that with vigour, as is
indeed happening.
>
>> "...you would have to redistribute wealth, which is also against their
>> ideology."
>>
>> Why is against so many people's ideology? Because it doesn't work. You
>> cannot redistribute wealth because it is something people must make for
>> themselves. Wealth is not just an external state but also an internal
>> state
>> which includes, money management, frugality, budgeting, regular working
>> etc
>> etc. You *can* try to distribute opportunity, but this is no easy thing,
>> and
>> takes time.
>
> You're an idiot.
Touche!
>1% of the population in the US owns as much wealth
> as 50% of the rest. In fact the distribution of wealth in the US is
> even more skewed than in Egypt. This fact threatens the viability of
> the entire economy and political system.
Then I would suggest opportunity is not well distributed in the US.
>
> http://www.businesspundit.com/wealth-distribution-in-the-united-states/
>
>> "You would have to subsidize renewable energy, which also breaks their
>> worldview."
>>
>> No, subsidies and tax breaks ave been part of the free-enterprise system
>> all
>> along. And this is happening.
>
> Seems a little odd that fossil fuels receive more subsidy than clean
> energy doesn't it.
It does to me, and nuclear (in the UK).
>
>> "You would have to have a really strong United Nations, because
>> individual
>> countries can’t do this alone. You absolutely have to have a strong
>> international architecture"
>>
>> Yes you do, but some people think market forces are a much stronger
>> 'international architecture' than a bunch of UN aparachicks. Once
>> renewables
>> are competitive on price they will be adopted, and massively.
>
> I don't see you as having any credibility on this whatsoever. There's
> no such thing as a "free market", particularly where energy production
> is concerned.
Of course there is. Here in the UK you can choose your electricty supplier,
or whether you walk or drive, what temp you set the thermometer. Is it a
perfectly free market, no, but then what is perfect?
>
>> "OK, I accept that my whole worldview is going to fall apart,"
>>
>> So now who is dreaming about political ideologies. Does this writer
>> really
>> think CAGW is going to turn everyone Marxist. LOL.
>>
>> Anyway enough prpaganda bashing for now, hahahahaha
>
> Moron!
You wanted more huh? Try it yourself, it is easy, so easy.
Edward A. Falk
Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>... But
>actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
>many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
>
By which I assume you mean "profits". I thought it pretty much
went without saying.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Bareback Insane O'bungler
> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
>
> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
"climate change" is not seen as a threat, liar.
"climate change" happens.
Why do you retards have to lie?
Bareback Insane O'bungler
> > Mythical Manmade Warming is not a threat, but the thick-headed army of
> > socialist, leftist zealots is a threat!
>
> Bozo shows us so clearly that climate change threatens his world view.
How, drooler?
You show us you're a shit-eating-left-turd-retard.
Bob F
> You're an idiot. 1% of the population in the US owns as much wealth
> as 50% of the rest. In fact the distribution of wealth in the US is
> even more skewed than in Egypt. This fact threatens the viability of
> the entire economy and political system.
400 people own as much wealth as the bottom 155 million in the US.
The rich are the only ones who have given nothing in the financial collapse of
this economy. In fact, they have benefitted wildly.
Unum
Didn't read the article did you.
Unum
> "Unum"<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:ilb1l2$ipa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 3/10/2011 3:05 AM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
>>> "Unum"<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
>>> news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
>>>>
>>> "It’s not happening everywhere. It’s happening in countries that have
>>> very
>>> polarized political debates, where they have very strong culture wars."
>>>
>>> It is happening in those countries with the most mature understanding of
>>> the
>>> so-called science, and probably the most informed/educated public with
>>> the
>>> best access to the internet.
>>
>> Doesn't explain how fewer people even believe that "climate change is
>> real"
>> despite the clear evidence they can see around them. This has nothing to
>> do with access to the internet or the science.
>
>
> What evidence do you see all around you?
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
In my part of the world the effects are manifesting as longer
and more intense heat waves, and more frequent droughts.
>>> "Democrats overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Their position hasn’t
>>> changed. Republicans now don’t"
>>>
>>> This may be true in the US but not the UK or Oz necessarily. I can see
>>> where
>>> this article is going...
>>>
>>> "...because what it means is that it no longer really has anything to do
>>> with the science."
>>>
>>> I was right. "It isn't the 'science'." That is true in a way because CAGW
>>> can hardly be called science. However the problem is the propaganda and
>>> nightmare-fantasy that passes for climate-science.
>>
>> You are a willfully ignorant denialist, the credibility of the science
>> has frequently been demonstrated to you
>
> Not at all. I'm really not sure what you are talking about. I have often
> looked at resources that I supposed to convince me but found them to be
> seriously flawed as usual.
Exactly. No evidence would be adequately convincing. Classic denialism.
>> but it will never make any
>> difference. In fact you are one of the sad little weenies being described
>> in the article, climate change threatens your world view.
>
>
> OK, so you are just trying to attack me here. For sure BS threatens my
> worldview as I tend to prefer truth.
Then why all the lies?
>>> "...most of the big green groups are loath to talk about economics and
>>> often
>>> don’t want to see themselves as being part of a left at all, see climate
>>> change as an issue that transcends politics entirely."
>>>
>>> Of course they don't want to talk about economics because as soon as they
>>> do
>>> their 'solutions' are seen for what they are disasters in waiting. And
>>> *of
>>> course* they don't see themselves as Marxists, they think they right
>>> dead-centre in the middle ground of the pure-truth, with no political
>>> bias.
>>> That just happens to be where Marx was as well, if only those silly
>>> Repugs
>>> could see this obvious truth. Lol.
>>
>> There is already a disaster in the waiting, and it is beginning to play
>> out for us now. The solution for some people, apparently, is to shove
>> their head up their ass and hope the problem goes away.
>
>
> I think whether CAGW is a lucky guess or not the only way forward is clean,
> renewable energy, so we should certainly persue that with vigour, as is
> indeed happening.
Its happening, but not with vigor. And certainly not to an extent
that will stave off climactic disaster.
>>> "...you would have to redistribute wealth, which is also against their
>>> ideology."
>>>
>>> Why is against so many people's ideology? Because it doesn't work. You
>>> cannot redistribute wealth because it is something people must make for
>>> themselves. Wealth is not just an external state but also an internal
>>> state
>>> which includes, money management, frugality, budgeting, regular working
>>> etc
>>> etc. You *can* try to distribute opportunity, but this is no easy thing,
>>> and
>>> takes time.
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>
> Touche!
>
>> 1% of the population in the US owns as much wealth
>> as 50% of the rest. In fact the distribution of wealth in the US is
>> even more skewed than in Egypt. This fact threatens the viability of
>> the entire economy and political system.
>
> Then I would suggest opportunity is not well distributed in the US.
I would suggest you don't have a clue about either wealth or opportunity.
>> http://www.businesspundit.com/wealth-distribution-in-the-united-states/
>>
>>> "You would have to subsidize renewable energy, which also breaks their
>>> worldview."
>>>
>>> No, subsidies and tax breaks ave been part of the free-enterprise system
>>> all
>>> along. And this is happening.
>>
>> Seems a little odd that fossil fuels receive more subsidy than clean
>> energy doesn't it.
>
> It does to me, and nuclear (in the UK).
>
>>
>>> "You would have to have a really strong United Nations, because
>>> individual
>>> countries can’t do this alone. You absolutely have to have a strong
>>> international architecture"
>>>
>>> Yes you do, but some people think market forces are a much stronger
>>> 'international architecture' than a bunch of UN aparachicks. Once
>>> renewables
>>> are competitive on price they will be adopted, and massively.
>>
>> I don't see you as having any credibility on this whatsoever. There's
>> no such thing as a "free market", particularly where energy production
>> is concerned.
>
> Of course there is. Here in the UK you can choose your electricty supplier,
> or whether you walk or drive, what temp you set the thermometer. Is it a
> perfectly free market, no, but then what is perfect?
Demonstrating that you don't even know what a free market is.
>>> "OK, I accept that my whole worldview is going to fall apart,"
>>>
>>> So now who is dreaming about political ideologies. Does this writer
>>> really
>>> think CAGW is going to turn everyone Marxist. LOL.
>>>
>>> Anyway enough prpaganda bashing for now, hahahahaha
>>
>> Moron!
>
> You wanted more huh? Try it yourself, it is easy, so easy.
As usual, your posts are a waste of time to read.
Giga2
Which part of the world is that? Talking of the UK and Germany I haven't
noticed much difference 'all around me'. Even as regards the world there has
always been extreme events. Can I ask have these difference mainly be 'all
around you' since 1998? Or was it 2005 when you first saw An Incovenient
Truth?
>
>>>> "Democrats overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Their position
>>>> hasn’t
>>>> changed. Republicans now don’t"
>>>>
>>>> This may be true in the US but not the UK or Oz necessarily. I can see
>>>> where
>>>> this article is going...
>>>>
>>>> "...because what it means is that it no longer really has anything to
>>>> do
>>>> with the science."
>>>>
>>>> I was right. "It isn't the 'science'." That is true in a way because
>>>> CAGW
>>>> can hardly be called science. However the problem is the propaganda and
>>>> nightmare-fantasy that passes for climate-science.
>>>
>>> You are a willfully ignorant denialist, the credibility of the science
>>> has frequently been demonstrated to you
>>
>> Not at all. I'm really not sure what you are talking about. I have often
>> looked at resources that I supposed to convince me but found them to be
>> seriously flawed as usual.
>
> Exactly. No evidence would be adequately convincing. Classic denialism.
No evidence, exactly.
>
>>> but it will never make any
>>> difference. In fact you are one of the sad little weenies being
>>> described
>>> in the article, climate change threatens your world view.
>>
>>
>> OK, so you are just trying to attack me here. For sure BS threatens my
>> worldview as I tend to prefer truth.
>
> Then why all the lies?
Such as?
There is plenty of time before that is a threat, maybe a 1000 years (at
least 25-50), if we do not start back into the ice age before that anyway.
These things tend to start fairly small and build up slowly, at first. Its
called exponential growth. Powerful stuff, but difficult to visualise. For
example if I said I would give $1 today, $2 tommorow, $4 the next day and so
on, for 21 days or $200,000 on day one, which would you choose? As I'm sure
you have guessed you should choose the $1 because on the 21st day I would be
handing over $500,000 just on that day (IIRC). That is exponential growth.
Once renewables start being anyway competeitive they are going to explode
across the world, hopefully.
Bareback Insane O'bungler
I did, shit-eater.
It's covered under
Bareback Insane O'bungler
> On 3/10/2011 2:16 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Unum"<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> >news:ilb1l2$ipa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> On 3/10/2011 3:05 AM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
> >>> "Unum"<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
>
> >>> "It s not happening everywhere. It s happening in countries that have
> >>> very
> >>> polarized political debates, where they have very strong culture wars."
>
> >>> It is happening in those countries with the most mature understanding of
> >>> the
> >>> so-called science, and probably the most informed/educated public with
> >>> the
> >>> best access to the internet.
>
> >> Doesn't explain how fewer people even believe that "climate change is
> >> real"
> >> despite the clear evidence they can see around them. This has nothing to
> >> do with access to the internet or the science.
>
> > What evidence do you see all around you?
>
> http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
>
> In my part of the world the effects are manifesting as longer
> and more intense heat waves, and more frequent droughts.
Prove it, you delusional shit eater.
Everybody knows you just pulled that
out of you well used ass.
>[drivel]
Unum
Sounds like dr yacub's sock puppet has a little anger
management problem.
But here you go buddy;
http://img9.imageshack.us/i/austintemperatures2009.jpg/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124872939604384837.html
I sure hope this satisfies the resident right-wing ideologues. And
maybe they could read the actual article.
Bareback Insane O'bungler
LOL!!!!
You were asked for proof, shit-eater,
and you show meaningless kaka.
> I sure hope this satisfies the resident right-wing ideologues. And
> maybe they could read the actual article.
LOL!!!!
You were asked for proof, shit-eater.
I knew you had none.
You O'bama-turds are delusional.
Unum
Giga2
So that's the area, Australia? That is not the world you know.
Unum
No, dumbass, it is not Australia. I didn't claim it was
the world either, I was responding to your "What evidence
do you see all around you?" remark. Which was completely
aside from the point of the original article anyway. As
usual you are a waste of time.
leona...@gmail.com
>
> No, dumbass, it is not Australia. I didn't claim it was
> the world either, I was responding to your "What evidence
> do you see all around you?" remark. Which was completely
> aside from the point of the original article anyway. As
> usual you are a waste of time.
ø Indeed dumbass Unum you are the "waste of time"
You are fussing about a past short term hot
spell in a local area.
ø The last interglacial period ended 1,600 years
ago and we are in the last decades before the
Polar ice starts inching toward the Equator.
These decades are noteworthy for extreme
events, like the Texas heat wave, Australian
floods, and the Pacific tsunami.
ø The ice will begin moving sometime after 2020.
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,
terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.˙
Bareback Insane O'bungler
>
> > LOL!!!!
> > You were asked for proof, shit-eater,
> > and you show meaningless kaka.
>
> >> I sure hope this satisfies the resident right-wing ideologues. And
> >> maybe they could read the actual article.
>
> > LOL!!!!
> > You were asked for proof, shit-eater.
> > I knew you had none.
>
> > You O'bama-turds are delusional.
>
> Sounds like dr yacub's sock puppet has a little anger
> management problem.
Can't stop lying, can you?
Typical lib-turd....
You O'bama-turds are delusional.
> I sure hope this satisfies the resident right-wing ideologues. And
> maybe they could read the actual article.
What do you think you have proved,
you delusional left-turd-sycophant?
Did you ever hear of the dust bowl, shit-eater?
Too much C02?
Bareback Insane O'bungler
LOL!!!!
You showed NO evidence!!!
You can't cite your lies, can you?
> Which was completely
> aside from the point of the original article anyway.
LOL!!!
OF course it was, shit-eater.
You brought it up.
Typical left-turd. behavior.
Bret Cahill
>
> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate...
>
> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
There is more to it than the usual garden variety inability of
conservatives to face reality.
Many still deny the classical _local_ tragedy of the commons so
denying _global_ climate disruption is going to be duck soup.
Many still deny the U.S. only has 2% of world oil reserves -- "drill
baby drill" -- so denying climate disruption is going to be duck soup.
They want everyone to believe that everything is or could be an
induhvidualist free marketry free trade so denying so denying
international collective action on climate disruption is going to be
duck soup.
What am I saying?
Conservatives are scared to death of basic logic -- see The Question
at www.bretcahill.com -- so denying climate disruption is duck soup.
Bret Cahill
Michael Price
> > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
> >http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate...
>
> > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> > fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
>
> There is more to it than the usual garden variety inability of
> conservatives to face reality.
>
> Many still deny the classical _local_ tragedy of the commons so
> denying _global_ climate disruption is going to be duck soup.
>
in fact it's a frequent free market talking point.
> Many still deny the U.S. only has 2% of world oil reserves -- "drill
> baby drill" -- so denying climate disruption is going to be duck soup.
>
When did any conservative deny that? Margins matter moron.
> They want everyone to believe that everything is or could be an
> induhvidualist free marketry free trade so denying so denying
> international collective action on climate disruption is going to be
> duck soup.
>
> What am I saying?
>
> Conservatives are scared to death of basic logic -- see The Question
Which I've answered and you've changed and which makes absolutely
no difference to economics whatsoever.
> atwww.bretcahill.com-- so denying climate disruption is duck soup.
>
> Bret Cahill
Bob F
"Bareback Insane O'bungler" <barebackins...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3e776bb-
>OF course it was, shit-eater.
>You brought it up.
>Typical left-turd. behavior.
Typical right wing wacko arguement.
Why do all these right wingers sound the same?
Giga2
I am for anyone who wants people to just believe propaganda because they are
ruder.
Bareback Insane O'bungler
wrote:
> "Bareback Insane O'bungler" <barebackinsaneobung...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d3e776bb-
>
> >OF course it was, shit-eater.
> >You brought it up.
> >Typical left-turd. behavior.
>
Why did you even bother, shit-eater?
Desertphile
wrote:
> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
>
> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> seen as such a threat? I don’t believe it’s an unreasonable
> fear. I think it’s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> making up the science. They’re not. It’s not a hoax. But
> actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
But it isn't fear of science: it's fear of regulation due to the
worse free market failure in human history. You know: greed.
Billions of people are being forced to pay to mitigate the damage
caused by a product they did not purchase and did not use: fossil
fuels. This shows free marketing does not work, and many of my
right-wing peers refuse to accept that fact.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
>
> "Unum" <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
> >
> > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > seen as such a threat?
>
> Mythical Manmade Warming is not a threat
Nobody claimed otherwise. The threat is anthropogenic global
warming.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 3/9/2011 9:06 PM, ardger wrote:
> > "Unum"<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> > news:il9b67$78m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> >>
> >> http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
> >>
> >> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> >> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> >> seen as such a threat?
> > Mythical Manmade Warming is not a threat, but the thick-headed army of
> > socialist, leftist zealots is a threat!
Hysterical alarmist paranoid.
> Bozo shows us so clearly that climate change threatens his world view.
He also rejects both evolution and evolutionary theory.
Desertphile
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2:57 am, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate...
> >
> > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> > fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
> If GW CC CGD CC is a threat to the right, doesnt that mean its a
> product of the left?
Alarmist hysterical paranoid. What "left?" Fuck the stupid idiot
"left." The "left" in the USA doesn't even exist: we destroyed the
stupid shits utterly decades ago.
Desertphile
<sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:57:28 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
> > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> >
> >
> > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > seen as such a threat? I don┤ believe it┬ an unreasonable
> > fear. I think it┬ unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > making up the science. They┴e not. It┬ not a hoax. But
> > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
> You can call it science all you want, but AGW methodology is in total
> violation of the scientific method.
Why do all of the scientists on the planet say you're wrong?
> Any are area would call for the
> elimination of these conclusions due to improper analysis of the type of
> research utilized.
So, you know of a hidden mechanism that caused the current global
temperature increase that no scientist on Earth knows. Now, your
next step is to write a paper on the subject and send it to a
refereed peer-reviewed science journal and tell them about it. It
is your civic duty to the world. What the hell are you waiting
for?! Start here: http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/
> Start utilizing the universally accepted scientific
> method and maybe you will get some attention.
Why does your cult refuse to publish in peer-reviewed science
journals? Why do you only have blogs and FOX "News?"
> Until then, all you have been using is bully tactics.
Scientists are bullies? LOL!
> That is NOT science. Science demands the OPEN exchange of ideas.
Yep! You may start here http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/
> You condemn it. Science demands challenge. You blacklist
> challengers without examining the scientific method behind it.
Huh? Science journals are open to =EVERYONE.= Demonstrate you have
a case and you will the prize. Why does your cult refuse to do
that?
> Until AGW
> starts utilizing the Scientific method it is NOT science.
Huh? AGW is a phenomena obswerved in nature; it doesn't "do"
science: it just happens.
Desertphile
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:07 pm, Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:57:28 -0600, Unum wrote:
> > > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> >
> > >http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate...
> >
> > > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > > seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> > > fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > > making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> > > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
> >
> > You can call it science all you want, but AGW methodology is in total
> > violation of the scientific method. Any are area would call for the
> > elimination of these conclusions due to improper analysis of the type of
> > research utilized. Start utilizing the universally accepted scientific
> > method and maybe you will get some attention. Until then, all you have been
> > using is bully tactics. That is NOT science. Science demands the OPEN
> > exchange of ideas. You condemn it. Science demands challenge. You blacklist
> > challengers without examining the scientific method behind it. Until AGW
> > starts utilizing the Scientific method it is NOT science.
> Yes...."science" dobony. What you are proposing has very little to do
> with science. That's why people ignore people like you and don't give
> you a platform for debate.
>
> Quite right too.
"Michael Dobony" is upset with science and the scientific method
because it is contrary to his political programming. He clearly
wants to redefine what science is, just like Michael Behe tried in
the Dover Area School Board trial (where Behe said astrology and
Creationism are "science").
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 3/10/2011 11:07 AM, Michael Dobony wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:57:28 -0600, Unum wrote:
> >
> >> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> >>
> >>
> >> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> >> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> >> seen as such a threat? I don┤ believe it┬ an unreasonable
> >> fear. I think it┬ unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> >> making up the science. They┴e not. It┬ not a hoax. But
> >> actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> >> many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
> >
> > You can call it science all you want, but AGW methodology is in total
> > violation of the scientific method. Any are area would call for the
> > elimination of these conclusions due to improper analysis of the type of
> > research utilized. Start utilizing the universally accepted scientific
> Yeah I know, I've seen you beat this dead horse several times. Some
> nitwit on the internet thinks actual scientists aren't doing it the
> right way. Who cares what you think?
>
> Hey, why did you run away from your statement the other day;
> "Wind and solar are already hard to justify without hiding the
> facts. Wind power is big in Texas and requires coal fired generators
> to back it up when the wind is not cooperating, as it rarely does.
> Solar simply has too little bang for the buck. Both have payback
> periods in multiples of useful life. Translation: They cost more
> than they produce!"
>
> Let's see your numbers Mr. "it ain't science unless I say it is"!
The United States Department of Energy publishes all of the data
every year. It might be interesting to graph each energy source
over time to see what trends exist.
Meanwhile, China has spent an astonishing amount of money and
effort on solar- and wind-derived power, with amazing results.
They still use coal-fired generators to meet very high demand, and
thier energy grid is "smart" by design (it finds excess storage
when demand is low).
Just for example, in the past eight years one business in China
has installed more than 35,000,000 solar water heaters, each one
costing the equivalent of $250. The water heaters are energy-
gradient syphoned (i.e., passive: no pump to move the heated water
to the tank), and they heat water even when the ambient
temperature is below freezing (the solar gain elements are in
partial vacuum).
Compare that $250 per house to the USA's energy subsidies. For a
tiny fraction of what USA taxpayers spend subsidizing solar energy
and ethanol, every house in the United States could be equipped
with one of these vaccuated solar water heaters. The saving in
fuel every year would be in the billions of dollars.
The reasons the USA has not done so are (1) China can not build
enough fast enough to meet their own demand, let alone the USA's,
and (2) greedy bastards in the USA oppose solar energy.
Desertphile
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate...
> >
> > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> > fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
> There is more to it than the usual garden variety inability of
> conservatives to face reality.
Please: =SOME= conservatives, the ones in power in the USA. Not
all conservatives are evil ignorant greedy bastards who hate
America and American ideals.
> Many still deny the classical _local_ tragedy of the commons so
> denying _global_ climate disruption is going to be duck soup.
>
> Many still deny the U.S. only has 2% of world oil reserves -- "drill
> baby drill" -- so denying climate disruption is going to be duck soup.
>
> They want everyone to believe that everything is or could be an
> induhvidualist free marketry free trade so denying so denying
> international collective action on climate disruption is going to be
> duck soup.
>
> What am I saying?
>
> Conservatives are scared to death of basic logic -- see The Question
> at www.bretcahill.com -- so denying climate disruption is duck soup.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> > >http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate...
>
> > > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > > seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> > > fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > > making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> > > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
> > There is more to it than the usual garden variety inability of
> > conservatives to face reality.
>
> Please: =SOME= conservatives, the ones in power in the USA.
Not that "liberals" aren't corrupt too but ever since Reagan
"conservatism" began to mean "bought off."
This never happened before in U.S. history.
> Not
> all conservatives are evil ignorant greedy bastards who hate
> America and American ideals.
Newsgroups rightards are so confused and stupid they believe Karl Marx
wrote the Federalist #10.
Bret Cahill
Desertphile
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:57�pm, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate...
> >
> > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > seen as such a threat? I don t believe it s an unreasonable
> > fear. I think it s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > making up the science. They re not. It s not a hoax. But
> > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
> Because they are anti-science and pro "end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it"
> propaganda.
The right wing doesn't want to end the world, idiot. And not all
of them are anti-science, idiot.
Bob F
How low can you go?
AGWFacts
> I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
>
> "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> seen as such a threat? I don’t believe it’s an unreasonable
> fear. I think it’s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> making up the science. They’re not. It’s not a hoax. But
> actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
alanm...@yahoo.com
it?
Just expressing a "belief" in global warming, and castigating
skeptics while you still use a computer, heat your house, eat food
pruchased from
the grocery store, and commuting to work, makes you a hypocrite- A.
McIntire
gordo
are living? The behavior of most people who understand the facts about
AGW has changed ages ago.
alanm...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:52:59 -0700 (PDT), "alanmc95...@yahoo.com"
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >(cut)
> >> Climate change is a threat to everyone, not just us conservatives.
>
> >So if you think climate change is a threat,what are you doing about
> >it?
> >Just expressing a "belief" in global warming, and castigating
> >skeptics while you still use a computer, heat your house, eat food
> >pruchased from
>
> Do you think this clown is trying to make people guilty because they
> are living? The behavior of most people who understand the facts about
> AGW has changed ages ago.
significantly?
About 84% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
Supposedly, unless we cut production of fossil fuels back 80%, the
fraction of CO2 will supposedly continue to grow. If it weren't for
the threat of draconian measures to cut back energy use, AGW would
NOT be receiving massive amounts of government funding, and all of
the dispute would be strictly among scientists- laypeople wouldn't
give a damn, other than cursory interest in the subject.- A. McIntire
gordo
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 11:24 am, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:52:59 -0700 (PDT), "alanmc95...@yahoo.com"
>>
>> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >(cut)
>> >> Climate change is a threat to everyone, not just us conservatives.
>>
>> >So if you think climate change is a threat,what are you doing about
>> >it?
>> >Just expressing a "belief" in global warming, and castigating
>> >skeptics while you still use a computer, heat your house, eat food
>> >pruchased from
>> >the grocery store, and commuting to work, makes you ahypocrite- A.
>> >McIntire
>>
>> Do you think this clown is trying to make people guilty because they
>> are living? The behavior of most people who understand the facts about
>> AGW has changed ages ago.
>
>Do you think the production of CO2 by CAGW believers has changed
>significantly?
behaviour of people who understand the facts changed ages ago.
>About 84% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
>Supposedly, unless we cut production of fossil fuels back 80%, the
>fraction of CO2 will supposedly continue to grow. If it weren't for
>the threat of draconian measures to cut back energy use, AGW would
>NOT be receiving massive amounts of government funding,
alanm...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:50:52 -0700 (PDT), "alanmc95...@yahoo.com"
"...A 2005 GAO report entitled “Federal Reports on Climate Change
Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete” found that federal
funding for climate change was not adequately accountable. “Congress
and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change
funding or spending over time,” the report concluded.
The report also found federal funding for global warming had increased
by 116 percent between 1993 and 2004, to $5.1 billion....."
"....According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the United
States “has made the world’s largest scientific investment in the
areas of climate change and global change research” with a total of
nearly $20 billion over the past 13 years."
- A. McIntire
Bruce Richmond
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:50:52 -0700 (PDT), "alanmc95...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
>
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 21, 11:24 am, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:52:59 -0700 (PDT), "alanmc95...@yahoo.com"
>
> >> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >(cut)
> >> >> Climate change is a threat to everyone, not just us conservatives.
>
> >> >So if you think climate change is a threat,what are you doing about
> >> >it?
> >> >Just expressing a "belief" in global warming, and castigating
> >> >skeptics while you still use a computer, heat your house, eat food
> >> >pruchased from
> >> >the grocery store, and commuting to work, makes you ahypocrite- A.
> >> >McIntire
>
> >> Do you think this clown is trying to make people guilty because they
> >> are living? The behavior of most people who understand the facts about
> >> AGW has changed ages ago.
>
> >Do you think the production of CO2 by CAGW believers has changed
> >significantly?
>
> CAGW believers is a stupid statement. What my statement said was the
> behaviour of people who understand the facts changed ages ago.
Did they give up their gasoline powered cars?
Did they stop heating their homes in the winter or running the AC in
the summer?
Have they all gone off grid?
Have they stopped buying food and products that used fossil fuels in
their production?
If you can't answer yes to all of these then they didn't change nearly
enough.
> >About 84% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
> >Supposedly, unless we cut production of fossil fuels back 80%, the
> >fraction of CO2 will supposedly continue to grow. If it weren't for
> >the threat of draconian measures to cut back energy use, AGW would
> >NOT be receiving massive amounts of government funding,
>
> AGW does not receive massive amounts of government funding.
>
>
>
> >and all of the dispute would be strictly among scientists- laypeople wouldn't
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gordo
Bruce Richmond
enough. There are people advocating laws which will require drastic
changes at great expense. There is nothing preventing the greens from
doing these things on their own if they think they should be done. In
fact doing so would be a good faith effort to show that it isn't that
hard to do. But few do that. Most keep right on driving their SUVs
because they are safer than little cars. And they buy their fresh
strawberries from South America in the winter because they are just so
good. And they do their part for the electric grid by paying a 5% or
whatever surcharge for green electricity, while most of it is produced
by burning coal. These people love to talk the talk but they have no
interest in actually walking the walk, if they have ever really
considered the consequences of what they are advocating.
It is not being a troll to point out their hypocrisy. When it is
recognized what they expect others to do is way beyond what they wish
to do themselves we might be able to discuss what is reasonable to
expect. I may be a skeptic about the extent of warming due to co2,
but I don't deny that we need to get away from fossil fuels. They
foul the air, water and earth. And they are a limited resource which
will eventually run out anyway. Since we need to move to something
else I think it would be far better to move to renewables rather than
nuclear with all its problems. Do these sound like the words of a
gordo
own experience with the people that I know is that they changed their
behaviors ages ago. I do not hang out with everybody and I have no
idea about your friends. So I can only address what my own experience
is. So if you have anything other than a rant provide it.
>It is not being a troll to point out their hypocrisy.
supporting evidence . Shame on you.
>to do themselves we might be able to discuss what is reasonable to
>expect.
have statistics?
> I may be a skeptic about the extent of warming due to co2,
>but I don't deny that we need to get away from fossil fuels. They
>foul the air, water and earth. And they are a limited resource which
>will eventually run out anyway. Since we need to move to something
>else I think it would be far better to move to renewables rather than
>nuclear with all its problems. Do these sound like the words of a
>troll?
a good new thread. It is a big jump from most keep driving their SUVs.
I would like to discuss all these ideas. You do not think you are a
troll so I will not be a troll and say you are or not.
Bruce Richmond
cave so you must know a few people. And of those people there must be
a few that believe in AGW. Of those how many have gone off grid and
eat only lacally grown food? How many have given up their own cars
and abstain from using other transportation powered by fossil fuels?
How many have switched over to heating with wood, which is really only
a half way measure since it still fouls the air and contributes to
deforestation.
> My
> own experience with the people that I know is that they changed their
> behaviors ages ago.
a long way from the proposals being advocated.
> I do not hang out with everybody and I have no
> idea about your friends. So I can only address what my own experience
> is. So if you have anything other than a rant provide it.
transportation? Do you eat only locally grown food? If you can only
address your own experience maybe you shouldn't have written "people
who understand the facts changed ages ago." You asked me for a cite,
where was yours?
gordo
AGWFacts
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:49:47 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:57:28 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I was reading this and it seemed to explain a lot.
> > >
> > > http://www.alternet.org/environment/150180/naomi_klein%3A_why_climate_change_science_is_so_threatening_to_right-wing_ideologues/?page=entire
> > >
> > > "But something very different is going on on the right, and I
> > > think we need to understand what that is. Why is climate change
> > > seen as such a threat? I don’t believe it’s an unreasonable
> > > fear. I think it’s unreasonable to believe that scientists are
> > > making up the science. They’re not. It’s not a hoax. But
> > > actually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great
> > > many things that right-wing ideologues believe in."
> >
> So if you think climate change is a threat,what are you doing about
> it?
am doing (educating people)?
> Just expressing a belief in global warming,
> and castigating skeptics
I have castigated skeptics in this newsgroup the sum total of
twice in nearly two years. Are you implying we should not be
castigated when we make mistakes?
> while you still use a computer, heat your house, eat food
> pruchased from the grocery store, and commuting to work,
> makes you a hypocrite
"hypocrite?"
Bruce Richmond
> - Show quoted text -
unsupported questionable statements. You do it to others all the
time. Even in this thread you demanded that I provide a cite. But it
was you that made the original claim "The behavior of most people who
understand the facts about AGW has changed ages ago." You provided
no cite and when challenged you came back with "I do not hang out with
everybody and I have no idea about your friends." So you admit you
don't know anything about all these people you claimed made changes,
and you think it is offensive to ask about the people you know, even
in a general sense. Sounds like you want to back out of any
responsibility for the claim you made. If you wish to withdraw it you
may and I will drop it.
gordo
understand the facts about AGW has changed ages ago. The evidence of
course is my experience.
>You provided
>no cite and when challenged you came back with "I do not hang out with
>everybody and I have no idea about your friends." So you admit you
>don't know anything about all these people you claimed made changes,
>and you think it is offensive to ask about the people you know, even
>in a general sense. Sounds like you want to back out of any
>responsibility for the claim you made. If you wish to withdraw it you
>may and I will drop it.
experience from the people that I know. I of course said most people
not all. If you associate with educated people as I do you would learn
that most people who are educated changed their behaviour ages ago. I
do not know who you associate with.
Bruce Richmond
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Richmond
>
>
>
>
>
to believe that most people who understand the facts about AGW has
changed ages ago, in any significant way? Have most of these people
gone off grid? Have they at least given up having their own cars?
Tell us a few things they have done because they understand the facts
about AGW. Remember, you claimed "most" of these people changed, so
it shouldn't be hard to come up with a few things.
> >You provided
> >no cite and when challenged you came back with "I do not hang out with
> >everybody and I have no idea about your friends." So you admit you
> >don't know anything about all these people you claimed made changes,
> >and you think it is offensive to ask about the people you know, even
> >in a general sense. Sounds like you want to back out of any
> >responsibility for the claim you made. If you wish to withdraw it you
> >may and I will drop it.
>
> The behavior of most people who understand the facts about AGW has
> changed ages ago. This is what I stated and I did it from my own
> experience from the people that I know. I of course said most people
> not all.
So far you have given zero examples of changes made, much less
significant changes.
> If you associate with educated people as I do you would learn
> that most people who are educated changed their behaviour ages ago.
of these changes.
> I do not know who you associate with.
gordo
>about AGW. Remember, you claimed "most" of these people changed, so
>it shouldn't be hard to come up with a few things.
installed passive solar heating over 20 years ago . Yes. Do my friends
car pool. You better believe it and have for years. Do my friends at
several universties ride their bikes to work. Yes for years. What
astounds me is that you do not have friends who have done the same.
I
>> >You provided
>> >no cite and when challenged you came back with "I do not hang out with
>> >everybody and I have no idea about your friends." So you admit you
>> >don't know anything about all these people you claimed made changes,
>> >and you think it is offensive to ask about the people you know, even
>> >in a general sense. Sounds like you want to back out of any
>> >responsibility for the claim you made. If you wish to withdraw it you
>> >may and I will drop it.
>>
>> The behavior of most people who understand the facts about AGW has
>> changed ages ago. This is what I stated and I did it from my own
>> experience from the people that I know. I of course said most people
>> not all.
>
>Agreed, most does not mean all, but it also means more than a couple.
>So far you have given zero examples of changes made, much less
>significant changes.
>
>> If you associate with educated people as I do you would learn
>> that most people who are educated changed their behaviour ages ago.
>
>You keep saying this but you have failed to provide even one example
>of these changes.
>
>> I do not know who you associate with.
>
>I'm not the one that made the claim, you are.
>
are clueless?
Bruce Richmond
AGW". You only know one person that understands AGW? Or do you only
have one friend?
> Do I have friends who
> installed passive solar heating over 20 years ago . Yes.
bit helps but many of the proposed cut backs go way beyond some
passive solar heating. Now about their driving and electric use......
> Do my friends
> car pool. You better believe it and have for years.
> Do my friends at
> several universties ride their bikes to work. Yes for years.
What you have shown here is that you know one person that made a
serious commitment to walking the walk rather than just talking the
talk. All the others have made token efforts to do something, but no
where near what has been proposed for all of us to do.
>What
> astounds me is that you do not have friends who have done the same.
the one making your foolish claim.
If you care, I have reduced the energy used to heat my home by about
60% since moving in 29 years ago. That included new windows in the
1941 house, and new insulation in the roof and walls. If you dropped
in last winter you would have noticed it was a bit cool since we keep
it at 58 F degrees. Our AC is opening the window. The mpg of my
vehicles has gradually improved from 10 mpg at one time to the current
50+ of the Prius I now drive. I have car pooled in the past and would
do so again if anyone else was going to the same place at the same
time. Many of my friends car pool and ride bicycles, and heat with
wood or wood pellets. They have also insulated their homes because it
save them money (or cutting time) for heat. That is why most people
do all the things you have listed except for going off grid.
> >> >You provided
> >> >no cite and when challenged you came back with "I do not hang out with
> >> >everybody and I have no idea about your friends." So you admit you
> >> >don't know anything about all these people you claimed made changes,
> >> >and you think it is offensive to ask about the people you know, even
> >> >in a general sense. Sounds like you want to back out of any
> >> >responsibility for the claim you made. If you wish to withdraw it you
> >> >may and I will drop it.
>
> >> The behavior of most people who understand the facts about AGW has
> >> changed ages ago. This is what I stated and I did it from my own
> >> experience from the people that I know. I of course said most people
> >> not all.
>
> >Agreed, most does not mean all, but it also means more than a couple.
> >So far you have given zero examples of changes made, much less
> >significant changes.
>
> >> If you associate with educated people as I do you would learn
> >> that most people who are educated changed their behaviour ages ago.
>
> >You keep saying this but you have failed to provide even one example
> >of these changes.
>
> >> I do not know who you associate with.
>
> >I'm not the one that made the claim, you are.
>
> What was the point in this exercise? Was it to show that your friends
> are clueless?
show that you were spouting off about the changes "most people who
understand the facts about AGW" have made are not nearly as
significant as you implied. Most of the people have made token
efforts to show they were green, in ways that saved them money or that
they just enjoyed doing anyway (bicycling). Even with your off grid
friend, there are varying levels of off grid. Some go off grid and
only run their gasoline powered generator so many hours a day. They
still drive their 12 mpg pickup truck in to the city to work, and pick
up their food at the same grocery stores as most everyone else.
BTW, one of my best friends in highschool moved up near Calgary
Alberta Canada, to a cabin 20 miles from the nearest road. Made his
living for several years as a hunting and hiking guide. A couple of
other friends got into forestry and became rangers. My son and his
friends built electric cars that competed in the 1995 and 1996 Tour de
Sol
http://www.foveal.com/Tour_de_Sol_Reports.html
I helped, spending a few nights running around to gather repair parts
and installing them before morning.
Looks like you are the clueless one here.
gordo
>> several universties ride their bikes to work. Yes for years.
>
>That's nice, but have they given up their cars?
>serious commitment to walking the walk rather than just talking the
>talk. All the others have made token efforts to do something, but no
>where near what has been proposed for all of us to do.
fossil fuels and that we have to reduce our burning of them.
> It was to show that you were spouting off about the changes "most people who
>understand the facts about AGW" have made are not nearly as
>significant as you implied.
world total. My reduction is miniscule of Canada's contribution. When
we measure Canada's total on a world scale it is 7th. If we expect
other nations to reduce their emissions we must reduce ours.
>Most of the people have made token
>efforts to show they were green, in ways that saved them money or that
>they just enjoyed doing anyway (bicycling). Even with your off grid
>friend, there are varying levels of off grid. Some go off grid and
>only run their gasoline powered generator so many hours a day. They
>still drive their 12 mpg pickup truck in to the city to work, and pick
>up their food at the same grocery stores as most everyone else.
>BTW, one of my best friends in highschool moved up near Calgary
>Alberta Canada, to a cabin 20 miles from the nearest road. Made his
>living for several years as a hunting and hiking guide. A couple of
>other friends got into forestry and became rangers. My son and his
>friends built electric cars that competed in the 1995 and 1996 Tour de
>Sol
>
>http://www.foveal.com/Tour_de_Sol_Reports.html
>
>I helped, spending a few nights running around to gather repair parts
>and installing them before morning.
>
>Looks like you are the clueless one here.
their behaviour ages ago. Even people you know changed their behaviour
ages ago as well as yourself.
Bruce Richmond
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:11:32 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Richmond
>
>
>
> >> Do I have friends who
> >> installed passive solar heating over 20 years ago . Yes.
>
> >And they no longer use any other source of energy for heating? Every
> >bit helps but many of the proposed cut backs go way beyond some
> >passive solar heating. Now about their driving and electric use......
> >> Do my friends
> >> car pool. You better believe it and have for years.
>
> >So they still have their cars. How about their heat and electric?
> Of course.
I'll bet there are plenty of deniers out there that car pool too. You
were talking like these people "who understand the facts about AGW"
made changes that were significant and somehow more than what skeptic
would do.
> >> Do my friends at
> >> several universties ride their bikes to work. Yes for years.
>
> >That's nice, but have they given up their cars?
> No
skeptic would.
> >What you have shown here is that you know one person that made a
> >serious commitment to walking the walk rather than just talking the
> >talk. All the others have made token efforts to do something, but no
> >where near what has been proposed for all of us to do.
>
> Who proposed what, for you to do? You know that we are dependent upon
> fossil fuels and that we have to reduce our burning of them.
proposals to limit co2.
Yes, I know we need to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels. And I
know there are many different ways it can be done. We don't have to
be alarmists to bring that about.
> >>What
> >> astounds me is that you do not have friends who have done the same.
>
> >How would you know? We never discussed my friends because I wasn't
> >the one making your foolish claim.
>
> >If you care, I have reduced the energy used to heat my home by about
> >60% since moving in 29 years ago. That included new windows in the
> >1941 house, and new insulation in the roof and walls. If you dropped
> >in last winter you would have noticed it was a bit cool since we keep
> >it at 58 F degrees. Our AC is opening the window. The mpg of my
> >vehicles has gradually improved from 10 mpg at one time to the current
> >50+ of the Prius I now drive. I have car pooled in the past and would
> >do so again if anyone else was going to the same place at the same
> >time. Many of my friends car pool and ride bicycles, and heat with
> >wood or wood pellets. They have also insulated their homes because it
> >save them money (or cutting time) for heat. That is why most people
> >do all the things you have listed except for going off grid.
"experience". But when it comes right down to it they haven't done
much in the way of changes to mitigate AGW with the possible exception
of the one that went off grid. And considering I know my friend went
off grid for entirely different reasons it is still questionable as to
why your friend went off grid.
> > It was to show that you were spouting off about the changes "most people who
> >understand the facts about AGW" have made are not nearly as
> >significant as you implied.
>
> I did not imply how significant it was. Canada contributes 1.8% of the
> world total. My reduction is miniscule of Canada's contribution. When
> we measure Canada's total on a world scale it is 7th. If we expect
> other nations to reduce their emissions we must reduce ours.
facts about AGW has changed ages ago." would most likely think you
meant more than the minor things you listed. This all started with
alan's post
alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So if you think climate change is a threat,what are you doing about
it? Just expressing a "belief" in global warming, and castigating
skeptics while you still use a computer, heat your house, eat food
pruchased from the grocery store, and commuting to work, makes you
ahypocrite- A. McIntire
done something significant so they shouldn't be considered
hypocrites. What you have shown is that they have done little more
than average, if that.
> >Most of the people have made token
> >efforts to show they were green, in ways that saved them money or that
> >they just enjoyed doing anyway (bicycling). Even with your off grid
> >friend, there are varying levels of off grid. Some go off grid and
> >only run their gasoline powered generator so many hours a day. They
> >still drive their 12 mpg pickup truck in to the city to work, and pick
> >up their food at the same grocery stores as most everyone else.
>
> 12 mpg truck? Must be your friends not mine.
what I wrote I didn't say it was either your friends or mine. It was
some hypothetical person living off grid. There are plenty of trucks
that only get 12 mpg, particularly when crawling around back roads in
4WD.
> >BTW, one of my best friends in highschool moved up near Calgary
> >Alberta Canada, to a cabin 20 miles from the nearest road. Made his
> >living for several years as a hunting and hiking guide. A couple of
> >other friends got into forestry and became rangers. My son and his
> >friends built electric cars that competed in the 1995 and 1996 Tour de
> >Sol
>
> >http://www.foveal.com/Tour_de_Sol_Reports.html
>
> >I helped, spending a few nights running around to gather repair parts
> >and installing them before morning.
>
> >Looks like you are the clueless one here.
>
> You just kind of make the case that people I don't even know changed
> their behaviour ages ago. Even people you know changed their behaviour
> ages ago as well as yourself.
Tour de Sol. They wanted to get away from fossil fuels for the same
reasons I do. There was no mention of co2 being a big problem at that
time. It was unburnt hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and NOx that were
problems. That and running out of oil.
gordo
that you are doing great things and perhaps I am not doing enough.
Bruce Richmond
[snip]
> Ok you win the prize for wasting my time with your troll. You did show
> that you are doing great things and perhaps I am not doing enough.
wasn't a waste of time. And I don't consider what I have done to be
"great things".