How Many Nobel Prize Winners Support the Anti-Global Warming Crowd?

7 views
Skip to first unread message

John

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:00:02 PM6/24/06
to
Zero!!!


TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:56:03 PM6/24/06
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, John wrote:

> Zero!!!

I wasn't aware that there was a Nobel Prize given for achievements in the
field of climatology.

Mike

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:26:22 AM6/25/06
to
In article <pan.2006.06.25....@none.net>,
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:

There isn't, of course. This was just a lame attempt at "appeal to
authority". It's what the GW believers are reduced to.

Mike

Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:49:47 AM6/25/06
to
"Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
no-2D2E71.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:26 PM:

I think the problem here is that few people have the expertise to really
argue one way or the other. When that is the case, it is reasonable to look
at:

* What the experts in the field say:
darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat

* Reasoned explanations of processes:
The claim that green house gasses cause a green house effect is
well studied and supported

* Examination of how much relevant pollution is being created:
Few people if any disagree that the problem is extreme here

* Correlative data:
Shows a strong connection with greenhouse gasses and temperature

* Alternate explanations that fit the data:
None have been offered that I have seen, though people have
tried and failed with claims of the warming coming from the
sun, the Earth's core, etc.

At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.

--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted

Mike

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:57:50 AM6/25/06
to
In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

> * What the experts in the field say:
> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat

Not even close to "universal".

> * Reasoned explanations of processes:
> The claim that green house gasses cause a green house effect is
> well studied and supported

OK.

> * Examination of how much relevant pollution is being created:
> Few people if any disagree that the problem is extreme here

Yes there are.


>
> * Correlative data:
> Shows a strong connection with greenhouse gasses and temperature

Not really. Many times the rising temp comes first.



> * Alternate explanations that fit the data:
> None have been offered that I have seen, though people have
> tried and failed with claims of the warming coming from the
> sun, the Earth's core, etc.

Well, none that you believe, anyway.

> At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
> pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.

There is *much* reasonable doubt.

Mike

Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:04:48 AM6/25/06
to
"Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:

> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> * What the experts in the field say:
>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>
> Not even close to "universal".

Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
claims of global warming.


>
>> * Reasoned explanations of processes:
>> The claim that green house gasses cause a green house effect is
>> well studied and supported
>
> OK.
>
>> * Examination of how much relevant pollution is being created:
>> Few people if any disagree that the problem is extreme here
>
> Yes there are.

Such as?



>> * Correlative data:
>> Shows a strong connection with greenhouse gasses and temperature
>
> Not really. Many times the rising temp comes first.

Support?

>> * Alternate explanations that fit the data:
>> None have been offered that I have seen, though people have
>> tried and failed with claims of the warming coming from the
>> sun, the Earth's core, etc.
>
> Well, none that you believe, anyway.

Do you have one?

>> At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
>> pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.
>
> There is *much* reasonable doubt.

Do tell!

--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)


John

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:12:57 AM6/25/06
to


You have'nt done much to learn about global warming other than read quack
right wing rants. According to an article published in Science magazine in
2004(a highly respected journal) there IS consensus. Of 935 articles
published in scientific journals in the last 10 years ALL supported the view
that global warming is primarily due to man made pollution.


The anti-global warming crowd has SO LITTLE DATA that it is not able to
publish even one article in a scientific journal. What to you expect from
the same scientific quacks who argued smoking did not cause lung cancer.


Mike

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:13:41 AM6/25/06
to
In article <C0C36780.52D25%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>
> > In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> * What the experts in the field say:
> >> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
> >
> > Not even close to "universal".
>
> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
> claims of global warming.

Right - exclude people who don't "believe"! How very fair and
open-minded of you!

Mike

Mike

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:18:23 AM6/25/06
to
In article <tdydnRM7nbHKhgPZ...@adelphia.com>,
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> You have'nt done much to learn about global warming other than read quack
> right wing rants.

Or perhaps you are reading "left wing rants".

>According to an article published in Science magazine in
> 2004(a highly respected journal) there IS consensus. Of 935 articles
> published in scientific journals in the last 10 years ALL supported the view
> that global warming is primarily due to man made pollution.

Uh huh, just like it was due to "man made pollution" all the times in
the past, right?

Mike

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:23:56 AM6/25/06
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

>Zero!!!
>
LOL! That's the exact same amount that supported the skeptics in 1895
and 1938 when global warming was going to kill us all as well. Guess
what? The skeptics were right both times! And they're right today.

You might want to do a little less blind appealing to authority and a
little of your own thinking.

--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."

Steve Jobs

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:31:48 AM6/25/06
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:04:48 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>

chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>"Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post


>no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>
>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>
>> Not even close to "universal".
>
>Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
>organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
>Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
>claims of global warming.

LOL! No wonder the global warming fundamentalists are so sure. They
insist on not hearing from nonbelievers and apostates.

>>
>>> * Reasoned explanations of processes:
>>> The claim that green house gasses cause a green house effect is
>>> well studied and supported
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>> * Examination of how much relevant pollution is being created:
>>> Few people if any disagree that the problem is extreme here
>>
>> Yes there are.
>
>Such as?
>
>>> * Correlative data:
>>> Shows a strong connection with greenhouse gasses and temperature
>>
>> Not really. Many times the rising temp comes first.
>
>Support?
>
>>> * Alternate explanations that fit the data:
>>> None have been offered that I have seen, though people have
>>> tried and failed with claims of the warming coming from the
>>> sun, the Earth's core, etc.
>>
>> Well, none that you believe, anyway.
>
>Do you have one?
>
>>> At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
>>> pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.
>>
>> There is *much* reasonable doubt.
>
>Do tell!
--

John

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:33:42 AM6/25/06
to
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> Zero!!!
>>
> LOL! That's the exact same amount that supported the skeptics in 1895
> and 1938 when global warming was going to kill us all as well. Guess
> what? The skeptics were right both times! And they're right today.
>
> You might want to do a little less blind appealing to authority and a
> little of your own thinking.

I can't believe how low your IQ is.


Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:41:25 AM6/25/06
to
"Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
no-667BFC.01...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 10:13 PM:

I did not state that only those groups specifically founded with the above
stated idea were the only ones *with* the above stated idea.

I do note, however, that you clearly imply it. How funny. Not a very
strong endorsement for your beliefs. :)

> How very fair and open-minded of you!

To quote John:
-----


You have'nt done much to learn about global warming other than read quack

right wing rants. According to an article published in Science magazine in


2004(a highly respected journal) there IS consensus. Of 935 articles
published in scientific journals in the last 10 years ALL supported the view
that global warming is primarily due to man made pollution.


The anti-global warming crowd has SO LITTLE DATA that it is not able to


publish even one article in a scientific journal. What to you expect from
the same scientific quacks who argued smoking did not cause lung cancer.

-----

So, do you have *any* counter support?

--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"

Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:43:46 AM6/25/06
to
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
mr7s92lk072eaoe7r...@4ax.com on 6/24/06 10:31 PM:

> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:04:48 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>>
>>> Not even close to "universal".
>>
>> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
>> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
>> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
>> claims of global warming.
>
> LOL! No wonder the global warming fundamentalists are so sure. They
> insist on not hearing from nonbelievers and apostates.

Do you really believe that the only people who do not believe are the ones
in organizations specifically formed to try to debunk the idea? Do you
really believe that *no* pre-existing organizations have doubts?

Great way to weaken your argument! LOL!

In any case, seems there is pretty strong agreement that not a single
pre-existing relevant organization doubts the existence of global warming.
As I said: pretty darn universal agreement.

Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:45:49 AM6/25/06
to
"Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
no-31EA24.01...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 10:18 PM:

> In article <tdydnRM7nbHKhgPZ...@adelphia.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> You have'nt done much to learn about global warming other than read quack
>> right wing rants.
>
> Or perhaps you are reading "left wing rants".

What makes you think that every relevant scientific journal and organization
is part of some vast left wing conspiracy? Or do you have another
explanation that would fit the data as well as your paranoid inferences?


>
>> According to an article published in Science magazine in
>> 2004(a highly respected journal) there IS consensus. Of 935 articles
>> published in scientific journals in the last 10 years ALL supported the view
>> that global warming is primarily due to man made pollution.
>
> Uh huh, just like it was due to "man made pollution" all the times in
> the past, right?

Can you show a more shallow understanding of the conversation? I cannot
imagine how, but I am hoping you continue to amuse me with your attempts.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:55:57 AM6/25/06
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:33:42 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose

to bless us with the following wisdom:

>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>> Zero!!!
>>>
>> LOL! That's the exact same amount that supported the skeptics in 1895
>> and 1938 when global warming was going to kill us all as well. Guess
>> what? The skeptics were right both times! And they're right today.
>>
>> You might want to do a little less blind appealing to authority and a
>> little of your own thinking.
>
>I can't believe how low your IQ is.
>

Unable to refute my facts, John resorts to personal attacks.

John

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:58:12 AM6/25/06
to
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:33:42 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>> Zero!!!
>>>>
>>> LOL! That's the exact same amount that supported the skeptics in
>>> 1895 and 1938 when global warming was going to kill us all as well.
>>> Guess what? The skeptics were right both times! And they're right
>>> today.
>>>
>>> You might want to do a little less blind appealing to authority and
>>> a little of your own thinking.
>>
>> I can't believe how low your IQ is.
>>
>
> Unable to refute my facts, John resorts to personal attacks.


I can't refute "facts" if none are provided.


ZnU

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 2:09:39 AM6/25/06
to
In article <no-2D2E71.00...@news.supernews.com>,
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:

Appeal to authority is only fallacious when the authority really isn't:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a
legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not
qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will
be fallacious."

Pointing to what climate scientists say about climate change is not a
logical fallacy.

--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

ZnU

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 2:12:04 AM6/25/06
to
In article <no-31EA24.01...@news.supernews.com>,
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:

Because it's impossible, of course, that two causes could have similar
effects, or that experts in a field might be able to tell which effect
is at work in any given case.

This is why murders are always impossible to distinguish from natural
deaths, and are never solved.

Timberwoof

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 2:20:17 AM6/25/06
to
In article <no-2D2E71.00...@news.supernews.com>, Mike <n...@where.man>
wrote:

> In article <pan.2006.06.25....@none.net>,

No...

But the bit about the lack of consensus thinking among climatologists, put
forward by GW naysayers, is an appeal to journalists. They and politicians seem
to be the only ones saying there's a controversy.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship,
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 2:56:00 AM6/25/06
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:58:12 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose

Playing 'I don't see' doesn't make them go away.

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:01:44 PM6/25/06
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:04:48 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>
>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>
>> Not even close to "universal".
>
> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
> claims of global warming.

Does this mean that you will exclude groups founded on the idea of trying
to prove claims of global warming? What will you use to support your
arguments then?

Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:20:36 PM6/25/06
to
"TheLetterK" <n...@none.net> stated in post
pan.2006.06.25....@none.net on 6/25/06 9:01 AM:

I believe that would be fair. Groups that are founded specifically to
support or deny the idea are, by their nature, going to be unlikely to look
at contrary data.

> What will you use to support your arguments then?

As far as I know, every relevant pre-existing group or group that has come
together to examine the situation but not shown a strong bias either way.
Do you have any counter examples?

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:54:24 PM6/25/06
to
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:20:36 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "TheLetterK" <n...@none.net> stated in post
> pan.2006.06.25....@none.net on 6/25/06 9:01 AM:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:04:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>>> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>>>
>>>> Not even close to "universal".
>>>
>>> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
>>> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
>>> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
>>> claims of global warming.
>>
>> Does this mean that you will exclude groups founded on the idea of trying
>> to prove claims of global warming?
>
> I believe that would be fair. Groups that are founded specifically to
> support or deny the idea are, by their nature, going to be unlikely to look
> at contrary data.
>
>> What will you use to support your arguments then?
>
> As far as I know, every relevant pre-existing group or group that has come
> together to examine the situation but not shown a strong bias either way.

Then I think you need to reexamine the situation. If you think scientists
are unbiased, then you really need to get out more often. The scientific
method may be unbiased, but the people interpreting the results *always*
apply some sort of bias. Among scientists, there also seems to be a
tendency towards self-aggrandizement. Any time there's a threat that could
cause a problem, scientists studying the problem are quick to
overemphasize it. If it's not climatologists going on about global
warming, it's astronomers going on about near earth asteroids. If it's not
astronomers going on about near earth asteroids, it's nuclear physicists
going on about nuclear weapon proliferation. If not that, then it's
disease researchers freaking out about potential superbugs. Etc, etc.

I think it's a result of federal research money being distributed, in
part, based on the level of threat perceived by the public from an issue.
If climatologists make global warming out to be a major threat, then a lot
more money gets spent researching the 'problem'. That's not to say it's
some massive conspiracy to get research funds--it's a universal tendency
towards enlightened self-interest on the part of scientists depending on
the money. That's not to say that they're out and out lying about the
results, but rather that their *conclusions* are biased in favor of their
own situation.

When dealing with something like, say, how galaxies form, do you often
hear scientists talk about certainties? I don't know about you, but most
of the ones I've heard seem to live in the realm of probabilities and
likelihood (not that this is a bad thing). But when we talk about
something like global warming, they suddenly become damn sure about the
cause. Why?

NRen2k5

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:59:56 PM6/25/06
to

What I can't personally say for certain is if there's anything we can do
to slow the global warming - it may even be *mostly* natural rather than
caused by pollution.

What I feel is most important is the Bushies need to pull their heads
out of their asses and realize that it IS a problem, and whether or not
anything can be done about it, there needs to be some preparation for
its *effects*.

--
http://pcguyelevated.ytmnd.com/

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:12:25 PM6/25/06
to

I don't think there's anyone denying that global warming is occurring, and
that the effects should be prepared for. What is being argued is the cause
of global warming (I happen to think it's a natural cycle, but others this
it's caused by human-derived greenhouse gas emissions).

And don't characterize all people who disagree with human-instigated
global warming as 'Bushies'. I can't stand Bush, and certainly wouldn't
vote for him. Of course, the Democrats are just as bad.

Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:12:54 PM6/25/06
to
"TheLetterK" <n...@none.net> stated in post
pan.2006.06.25....@none.net on 6/25/06 9:54 AM:

I do not believe anyone has claimed scientists hold no bias. If you are
trying to insinuate I have stated so then you are pushing a straw man. What
I have stated is that a group built to not just examine a phenomena but
built with a institutionalized goal of supporting or debunking a claim is
not likely to look at contrary information with an open mind.

In other organizations there are, undoubtedly, people with biases one way or
the other. When *all* relevant pre-existing organizations come to the same
conclusion, however, then it makes sense to assume there is a likelihood the
objective data leans that way - unless you can show why their is a global
conspiracy to push these folks in one direction.

> The scientific method may be unbiased, but the people interpreting the results
> *always* apply some sort of bias. Among scientists, there also seems to be a
> tendency towards self-aggrandizement. Any time there's a threat that could
> cause a problem, scientists studying the problem are quick to overemphasize
> it. If it's not climatologists going on about global warming, it's astronomers
> going on about near earth asteroids.

From what I have seen the *media* pushed the threat of near earth asteroids
while most relevant scientists talk about how the risk is not great.

> If it's not astronomers going on about near earth asteroids, it's nuclear
> physicists going on about nuclear weapon proliferation.

Do you not see nuclear weapons spreading into many hands as a bad thing?

> If not that, then it's disease researchers freaking out about potential
> superbugs. Etc, etc.

Again, I would say the media is more at fault here. Look at the bird flu
scare now... how many scientists are telling people to run to the hills?


>
> I think it's a result of federal research money being distributed, in
> part, based on the level of threat perceived by the public from an issue.

The groups are not just from the US, though presumably such a weakness could
be wide-spread.

> If climatologists make global warming out to be a major threat, then a lot
> more money gets spent researching the 'problem'. That's not to say it's
> some massive conspiracy to get research funds--it's a universal tendency
> towards enlightened self-interest on the part of scientists depending on
> the money. That's not to say that they're out and out lying about the
> results, but rather that their *conclusions* are biased in favor of their
> own situation.

A respected group coming out against the conclusion of all others would get
recognition... and funding.

> When dealing with something like, say, how galaxies form, do you often
> hear scientists talk about certainties? I don't know about you, but most
> of the ones I've heard seem to live in the realm of probabilities and
> likelihood (not that this is a bad thing). But when we talk about
> something like global warming, they suddenly become damn sure about the
> cause. Why?

The evidence is pretty overwhelming... but with that said there is
disagreement over the extend of the problem and many of the details.



>> Do you have any counter examples?

Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 1:19:56 PM6/25/06
to
"NRen2k5" <nom...@email.com> stated in post
aizng.211$sM4....@weber.videotron.net on 6/25/06 9:59 AM:

Unlikely and contrary to most relevant expert opinions... but I cannot prove
otherwise.


>
> What I feel is most important is the Bushies need to pull their heads
> out of their asses and realize that it IS a problem, and whether or not
> anything can be done about it, there needs to be some preparation for
> its *effects*.

That I will agree with.

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 2:50:17 PM6/25/06
to

It's *very* possible, given the historical temperature record. Most
climatologists tend to ignore geological evidence of temperature shifts in
the distant past, many of which were of greater magnitude than what we are
currently experiencing. It's similar to how Windows advocates seem unable
to effectively understand the position of Mac advocates, and vice versa.

> and contrary to most relevant expert opinions...

Purely an argument from authority.

Snit

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 3:18:36 PM6/25/06
to
"TheLetterK" <n...@none.net> stated in post
pan.2006.06.25....@none.net on 6/25/06 11:50 AM:

>>>> At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
>>>> pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.
>>>
>>> What I can't personally say for certain is if there's anything we can do
>>> to slow the global warming - it may even be *mostly* natural rather than
>>> caused by pollution.
>>
>> Unlikely
>
> It's *very* possible, given the historical temperature record. Most
> climatologists tend to ignore geological evidence of temperature shifts in
> the distant past, many of which were of greater magnitude than what we are
> currently experiencing. It's similar to how Windows advocates seem unable
> to effectively understand the position of Mac advocates, and vice versa.

Please support your contention that this data is being ignored.



>> and contrary to most relevant expert opinions...
>
> Purely an argument from authority.
>
>> but I cannot prove otherwise.
>>>
>>> What I feel is most important is the Bushies need to pull their heads
>>> out of their asses and realize that it IS a problem, and whether or not
>>> anything can be done about it, there needs to be some preparation for
>>> its *effects*.
>>
>> That I will agree with.

Lars Träger

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 8:45:03 PM6/25/06
to
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, John wrote:
>
> > Zero!!!
>
> I wasn't aware that there was a Nobel Prize given for achievements in the
> field of climatology.

No, but there are for for Chemistry and Physics. HTH.
--
Lars T.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 12:14:09 AM6/26/06
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:43:46 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>

chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
>mr7s92lk072eaoe7r...@4ax.com on 6/24/06 10:31 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:04:48 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>>> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>>>
>>>> Not even close to "universal".
>>>
>>> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
>>> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
>>> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
>>> claims of global warming.
>>
>> LOL! No wonder the global warming fundamentalists are so sure. They
>> insist on not hearing from nonbelievers and apostates.
>
>Do you really believe that the only people who do not believe are the ones
>in organizations specifically formed to try to debunk the idea? Do you
>really believe that *no* pre-existing organizations have doubts?
>
>Great way to weaken your argument! LOL!

So you actually think that the only 'valid' voices are from groups
formed for reasons other than to voice an opinion on a certain topic?
How utterly absurd. Of course that also invalidates many of the global
warming fundamentalist groups like the IPCC.

>
>In any case, seems there is pretty strong agreement that not a single
>pre-existing relevant organization doubts the existence of global warming.
>As I said: pretty darn universal agreement.

Before there were people not one single person expressed any doubt
about catastrophic, manmade global warming. Therefore 100% of humans
agree that its happening...according to your logic anyway.

Snit

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 1:00:28 AM6/26/06
to
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
7inu92dce1i7udv2a...@4ax.com on 6/25/06 9:14 PM:

I think that when groups are formed to push a specific agenda it makes sense
to take extra-caution at examining their message, at the very least. Since
there are so many groups around the globe that have looked at global warming
there is no reason to say my stipulation is overly strict. If there were
not so many organizations perhaps we could not take such strict care.



>> In any case, seems there is pretty strong agreement that not a single
>> pre-existing relevant organization doubts the existence of global warming.
>> As I said: pretty darn universal agreement.
>
> Before there were people not one single person expressed any doubt
> about catastrophic, manmade global warming. Therefore 100% of humans
> agree that its happening...according to your logic anyway.

Incorrect. And silly.

I am saying that as far as I know every single organization that does not
have an overt bias and open and specific agenda has come to the same
conclusion. My criteria for determining this agenda is easy - it is based
on their own claims: if a group claims to have an agenda I take their word
for it. This does not imply other groups do *not* have an agenda, but it is
absurd to assume *all* such groups have the same agenda - and as far as I
know they all come to the same conclusion.

Nothing at all like your straw man.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 1:35:44 AM6/26/06
to
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:00:28 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>

Actually its exactly like my statement. What you keep forgetting is
there was simply no reason to form a group opposing global warming
before it was an issue.

Snit

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 8:52:04 AM6/26/06
to
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
fesu92p7arfsrcfct...@4ax.com on 6/25/06 10:35 PM:

Before it was an issue there were many groups that looked at climate. Many.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 11:22:21 AM6/26/06
to
In article <fesu92p7arfsrcfct...@4ax.com>,

But pre-existing groups could have decided to argue against it once it
became an issue. The same way e.g. the National Academy of Sciences,
which bas been around for 143 years, decided to take a public stand on

the existence of global warming.

The only pre-existing groups which took the opposite stance, as far as I
know, are political groups or industry groups which have a stake in
convincing people global warming isn't happening, or at least isn't
their fault, even if it is.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 2:58:03 PM6/26/06
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:22:21 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to

Something you need to keep in mind is that there have been many
DOOM!sayers throughout the years. They've come from the religious
camp, the scientific camp, the just plain out of left field camp, etc.
They've predicted DOOM! in almost every way imaginable. But they have
one thing in common. In every single instance the people who said they
were full of crap were right. The 'climate change is going to kill us
all!' people were wrong in 1895; they were wrong in 1938 and they were
wrong in 1970. There's no rational reason to believe that they're
right now. These are the same people who are only slightly less able
to tell me if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a
Magic 8 Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather
forecast for the year 2100.

Edwin

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 3:11:29 PM6/26/06
to

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
contradictions in their predictions.

The other flaw is to think because something that was predicted in
1895, or 1938, or whenever, hasn't happened yet, that it won't happen.
The type of processes involved take a lot of time to produce results.

Sandman

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 3:18:56 PM6/26/06
to
In article <1151349089.3...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:

> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
> the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
> contradictions in their predictions.

I couldn't agree more, and I want to give you an eloge for this moment
of clarity, and I hope it's ok for you if I were to refer you to this
post when you lump "maccies" together from past and present and use
their statements and claims against a single mac advocate.

--
Sandman[.net]

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 3:36:14 PM6/26/06
to
On 26 Jun 2006 12:11:29 -0700, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> chose to

Which really means nothing. They still have the commonality of being
wrong. That's the basis for the grouping, not a claim that they're the
same person.

> So every person, who ever
>predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
>not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
>contradictions in their predictions.

The basis for the grouping is the fact that they've all been wrong.
That makes it valid.

>
>The other flaw is to think because something that was predicted in
>1895, or 1938, or whenever, hasn't happened yet, that it won't happen.
> The type of processes involved take a lot of time to produce results.

We could say the same thing about a lot of events. Its the difference
between worrying about what could happen as opposed to worrying about
what's likely to happen. As the history of DOOM!saying shows us actual
DOOM! is not very likely.

Snit

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 3:55:18 PM6/26/06
to
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
cpd0a2d2ninhjqocm...@4ax.com on 6/26/06 12:36 PM:

>> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
>> the same group of people ever since 1895.
>
> Which really means nothing. They still have the commonality of being
> wrong. That's the basis for the grouping, not a claim that they're the
> same person.

The flaw is you have decided one group is wrong because other groups you
place with it you believe were wrong. Then you claim you grouped them for
being wrong.

Do you see the circular nature of your grouping?


>
>> So every person, who ever
>> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
>> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
>> contradictions in their predictions.
>
> The basis for the grouping is the fact that they've all been wrong.
> That makes it valid.

But your "evidence" that at least some in the group are wrong is that they
are in the group... again, you are arguing in circles.

>> The other flaw is to think because something that was predicted in
>> 1895, or 1938, or whenever, hasn't happened yet, that it won't happen.
>> The type of processes involved take a lot of time to produce results.
>
> We could say the same thing about a lot of events. Its the difference
> between worrying about what could happen as opposed to worrying about
> what's likely to happen. As the history of DOOM!saying shows us actual
> DOOM! is not very likely.

There have been many disasters that *have* been predicted, if not in time,
in the fact they were possible. This includes pollution in cities, natural
disasters, man-made fires, terrorist attacks, etc.

Snit

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 4:10:35 PM6/26/06
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-29A65C.21...@individual.net on 6/26/06 12:18 PM:

How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call "beginners"?
Does it not occur to you that the number one professional web design tool is
used by professionals as well?

LOL... no, it does not. You will make an ass of yourself by trying to
defend your silly position.

--
€ Dreamweaver, being a pro web design tool, is not used by just beginners
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users

Lars Träger

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 5:57:50 PM6/26/06
to
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:

> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:22:21 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to
> > bless us with the following wisdom:
> >

> > Something you need to keep in mind is that there have been many
> > DOOM!sayers throughout the years. They've come from the religious
> > camp, the scientific camp, the just plain out of left field camp, etc.
> > They've predicted DOOM! in almost every way imaginable. But they have
> > one thing in common. In every single instance the people who said they
> > were full of crap were right. The 'climate change is going to kill us
> > all!' people were wrong in 1895; they were wrong in 1938 and they were
> > wrong in 1970. There's no rational reason to believe that they're
> > right now. These are the same people who are only slightly less able
> > to tell me if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a
> > Magic 8 Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather
> > forecast for the year 2100.
>
> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
> the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
> contradictions in their predictions.

However the people who claim that there IS NO problem always come from
the same group.
--
Lars T.

John

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 6:59:20 PM6/26/06
to
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:


You're low IQ is astounding.


John

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 7:00:55 PM6/26/06
to
Snit wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-29A65C.21...@individual.net on 6/26/06 12:18 PM:
>
>> In article <1151349089.3...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's
>>> not the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person,
>>> who ever predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present
>>> day, should not all be lumped together. Please remember that when
>>> you point out contradictions in their predictions.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more, and I want to give you an eloge for this
>> moment of clarity, and I hope it's ok for you if I were to refer you
>> to this post when you lump "maccies" together from past and present
>> and use their statements and claims against a single mac advocate.
>
> How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
> professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call
> "beginners"? Does it not occur to you that the number one
> professional web design tool is used by professionals as well?
>
> LOL... no, it does not. You will make an ass of yourself by trying to
> defend your silly position.


What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It is the
professionals tool of choice.


Snit

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 9:18:38 PM6/26/06
to
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> stated in post
ObKdnWGPL520-j3Z...@adelphia.com on 6/26/06 4:00 PM:

>> How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
>> professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call
>> "beginners"? Does it not occur to you that the number one
>> professional web design tool is used by professionals as well?
>>
>> LOL... no, it does not. You will make an ass of yourself by trying to
>> defend your silly position.
>
> What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It is the
> professionals tool of choice.

Sandman has repeatedly made the claim.

Post: <mr-5D24FB.11...@individual.net>
-----
Snit: Have you ever taught a Dreamweaver class?

Sandman: I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.
-----

Post: <mr-0B91D2.20...@individual.net>
-----
Snit: Dreamweaver is the highest rated *professional* web design tool.

Sandman: And it's still a wysiwyg tool, used mainly by beginners that
doesn't understand the principles of making a web site.
-----

Post: <mr-5D664C.08...@individual.net>
-----
Snit: Do you think Photoshop is only for beginners - you know, like how
you claimed Dreamweaver is.

Sandman: Because it is.
-----

And, of course, Tim Adams jumped in to agree with Sandman and, I believe,
Carroll offered his support as well. Between the three of them they could
not scrape enough sense together to borrow a clue.

John

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 11:01:42 PM6/26/06
to


Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design. On both Mac
and PC platforms. From Sandbag I would expect it, but Tim and Steve should
know better.


Steve Carroll

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:06:42 AM6/27/06
to
In article <p4OdndNq2r0KAj3Z...@adelphia.com>,
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

And you should know better than to believe Snit... as should anyone that
has read more than one of his posts. I never said a word about
Dreamweaver.

--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:35:40 AM6/27/06
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:59:20 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose

Unable to counter of my arguments with facts, John resorts to childish
namecalling.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:36:04 AM6/27/06
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:57:50 +0200, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars
Träger) chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

The group of people who are correct.

rock

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:37:42 AM6/27/06
to

You are being too kind by not pointing out that anyone who talks about
low IQs should at least know the difference between "YOU ARE" and "YOUR."

Clearly, john is an idiot.

How could anyone so clueless obtain a Mac? Does Apple donate computers
to asylums?

Snit

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 1:21:07 AM6/27/06
to
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> stated in post
p4OdndNq2r0KAj3Z...@adelphia.com on 6/26/06 8:01 PM:

Tim and Steve will say darn near *anything* in order to further their
trolling and flaming of me. Look at the "conversation" Steve and I have
recently had about his lies about me. Steve has told the same lie about me
10x a day on average for close to 4 months. Recently Tim has just been
following me around trying to defend Sandman - including by making an ass
out of himself and trying to join Sandman in belittling teachers of
Dreamweaver. Then again, Sandman and Tim claim a trained monkey could teach
the program yet neither has given any reason to think they would ever be
able to. :)

Snit

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 1:35:04 AM6/27/06
to
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
noone-2056AC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/26/06 9:06 PM:

>>>> What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It
>>>> is the professionals tool of choice.
>>>
>>> Sandman has repeatedly made the claim.

<SNIP />

>>> And, of course, Tim Adams jumped in to agree with Sandman and, I
>>> believe, Carroll offered his support as well. Between the three of
>>> them they could not scrape enough sense together to borrow a clue.
>>
>>
>> Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design. On both Mac
>> and PC platforms. From Sandbag I would expect it, but Tim and Steve should
>> know better.
>
> And you should know better than to believe Snit... as should anyone that
> has read more than one of his posts. I never said a word about
> Dreamweaver.

For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman. This is
more fully discussed here: <http://snipurl.com/sckg>.

Perhaps Steve wants people to believe that his 1200+ dishonest posts in
defense of himself and Sandman were not posted to show any form of support.

--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted

ZnU

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 2:31:35 AM6/27/06
to
In article <i3b0a2dpmnvn70e7s...@4ax.com>,

1) It hasn't been the same people since 1895, Mayor.
2) Understanding of climate science is much better now than it was
previously.
3) It is not, in fact, the case that everyone who predicts negative
outcomes has always been wrong. See e.g. the Iraq war.

> These are the same people who are only slightly less able to tell me
> if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a Magic 8
> Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather forecast for
> the year 2100.

Weather is not the same thing as climate, Mayor. What you're doing is
like telling a guy who has come to you with a business plan for a
casino "What do you mean you know how much the customers are going to
win? If you can't predict the results of an individual slot machine
round next Tuesday, how can you predict the winnings over the course of
a year?"

Sandman

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 5:11:15 AM6/27/06
to
In article <C0C58D4B.5310E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

> >> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
> >> the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
> >> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
> >> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
> >> contradictions in their predictions.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more, and I want to give you an eloge for this moment
> > of clarity, and I hope it's ok for you if I were to refer you to this
> > post when you lump "maccies" together from past and present and use
> > their statements and claims against a single mac advocate.
>
> How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
> professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call "beginners"?

It's never happened. I correctly stated that it was for beginners.

> Does it not occur to you that the number one professional web design tool is
> used by professionals as well?

Sure.

> LOL... no, it does not. You will make an ass of yourself by trying to
> defend your silly position.

It's your silly position, and I have no interest at all in defending
it for you.

Michael Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [X] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Thread hijacking
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When a troll has issues with a specific person (or several), the troll
will be inclined to bring up this issue whenever it is humanly
possible, even if it means to enter a totally unrelated thread to
post a lengthy post about why poster X is stupid as a reply to
something that had nothing to do with X at all. A very good example
of that is in this post [1] where Michael hijacks a thread just
because the concept of sex was mentioned and that gave him the
opportunity to once again mentioned a totally unrelated sex-based
issue he is having with Steve Carroll.

1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b4775197aa7
0e598>

8. Unsubstantiated accusations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll needs to accuse people of all sort of things, and since
substantiating accusations is time consuming, the troll is likely to
accuse people without substantiation. This is of course closely
related to obfuscation, since most of the time when the troll
actually does offer substantiation, it's based on the trolls own
obfuscation.


13. Lying
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obfuscating is the act of twisting words and meanings around so they
mean something else than what they were intended for. Lying is making
false statements. Both are untrue, but they differ in execution.

A troll often has no option other than to lie in order to further his
agenda. Especially when he's lost all arguments.

A good example of this is when Edwin quoted Sandman saying something
[1], using quotation marks. Problem was, that this wasn't something
Sandman had ever said. Or when Michael listed five outright lies
about Sandman [2].

1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dcdac1dd28f
153bf>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c410d8e2a3d
60683>


--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 5:15:09 AM6/27/06
to

> Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design.

...of all the wysiwyg tools available.

Agreed.


--
Sandman[.net]

Tim Adams

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 5:34:43 AM6/27/06
to

IF you had followed any of the threads where this was discussed, you would see
that snit has once again stated something that isn't true. I've not commented on
the program Dreamweaver. I have limited my comments on the shitty web designs of
snit.

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 8:08:15 AM6/27/06
to
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:31:35 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to

You guys keep repeating that like its significant. The thing that ties
them together is the fact that they're predicting DOOM!. DOOM! simply
doesn't happen very often. It hasn't happened at all since man has
been around. Some events have been locally devastating and before
modern means of travel and communication it must have seemed like the
world ended to the people involved. But that's hardly the same level
as what's constantly being predicted by the 100% wrong DOOM!sayers.

>2) Understanding of climate science is much better now than it was
> previously.

And its still far from complete. That's one of the things that amuses
me. If these clowns get cornered they will admit they don't understand
how the climate works. However they still insist that their models
work.
Even so it doesn't take much imagination to hear the guys in 1938 say
that to skeptics who point out the 1895 failure or to the 1970
skeptics who point out the 1895 and 1938 failure. It, likewise, isn't
hard to imagine the 2100 DOOM!sayers making the same point to their
skeptics when they point out the 1895, 1938, 1970 and 1985 failures.
And it grows as it goes. At some point intelligent people say 'Fool me
once and all that'.


>3) It is not, in fact, the case that everyone who predicts negative
> outcomes has always been wrong. See e.g. the Iraq war.

Iraq is going better than CBS and the New York Times will ever tell
you. Like that upbeat soldier told Matt Lauer 'If I got all my news
about Iraq from the newspapers I'd be depressed too.' It helps to know
a bunch of people who are actually over there, something that I doubt
many liberals do.

>
>> These are the same people who are only slightly less able to tell me
>> if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a Magic 8
>> Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather forecast for
>> the year 2100.
>
>Weather is not the same thing as climate, Mayor. What you're doing is
>like telling a guy who has come to you with a business plan for a
>casino "What do you mean you know how much the customers are going to
>win? If you can't predict the results of an individual slot machine
>round next Tuesday, how can you predict the winnings over the course of
>a year?"

Actrually what I'm saying is that these guys don't know as much as
they act like they do and it shows in their abilities.

Snit

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 9:19:38 AM6/27/06
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-D24D25.11...@individual.net on 6/27/06 2:11 AM:

> In article <C0C58D4B.5310E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
>>>> the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
>>>> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
>>>> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
>>>> contradictions in their predictions.
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more, and I want to give you an eloge for this moment
>>> of clarity, and I hope it's ok for you if I were to refer you to this
>>> post when you lump "maccies" together from past and present and use
>>> their statements and claims against a single mac advocate.
>>
>> How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
>> professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call "beginners"?
>
> It's never happened.

In reference to Dreamweaver you stated:

I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.

and

> Do you think Photoshop is only for beginners - you know,
> like how you claimed Dreamweaver is.

Because it is.

Once again, Sandman, the Google record show you have repeatedly grouped all
people who use the number one professional web design tool into what you
call "beginners". That is an amazingly ignorant position for you to take,
especially considering that you claim to be a web design pro.

You even repeat your BS below:

> I correctly stated that it was for beginners.

See.


>
>> Does it not occur to you that the number one professional web design tool is
>> used by professionals as well?
>
> Sure.

Yet conversely you will not admit that when you claimed otherwise above you
were wrong - and showing your ignorance of the web design industry. As
noted by many: you are a lying troll.

Sandman

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 9:24:31 AM6/27/06
to
In article <C0C67E7A.531E6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

> > It's never happened.
>
> In reference to Dreamweaver you stated:
>
> I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.

As opposed to "It's used only by beginners".

iDvd is a DVD mastering tool for beginners, but I bet it's not only
used by beginners.

<snip rest of the Snit Circus>

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 9:43:19 AM6/27/06
to
"Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
teadams$2$0$0$3-D1CFDB.05...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
2:34 AM:

Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-9D336B.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>
-----
Of course he overlooks the fact that a monkey could be trained to
teach Dreamweaver also, but nobody would consider it a website designer.
-----

Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
-----
As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
-----

And, perhaps just as telling, the text you run from:
-----
Note: no comment from Tim Adams: he has not been able to figure out that
when he belittles my skills in an area he has shown he has far lower
skills in that does not speak well of him. Funny, eh - even Tim
realizes a trained monkey could do a better job then he could.

In reality, and to pull this discussion from the silly circus Tim wants
it to go to, the reality is it takes a great deal of skill to be a good
teacher. Good teaching skills are, in fact, *more* important than
having good skills with the product you are teaching (though, of course,
that is important, too). As an example, I used to be one of two
Dreamweaver teachers at another institute: I *certainly* did not have
the web design experience or knowledge of the other teacher; he was a
full time web designer and, from what I have gathered, was quite good at
it. While my skills are passable, I am certainly not in that league.
Several students took both his and my class and in each case I know of
they claimed to learn far, far more in my class than in his. Looking at
the products our students produced made it clear my students achieved a
higher level of understanding. From what the other instructor said I
also rated better in student evaluations.

Many who do not teach are ignorant of the profession and feel a "trained
monkey" could do it. In CSMA, for example, Sandman and Tim Adams have
made that very claim while Steve Carroll has stated that he does not
even consider my job - that of a teacher / instructor - to be a "real
job". Their ignorance on this likely cannot be cured in a Usenet room.
-----

Funny how quickly both Tim Adams and Steve Carroll run from their support of
Sandman's trolling. Just like cockroaches when the light is turned on. :)

<