[OT] Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
May 31, 2006, 8:21:39 PM5/31/06
to

1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
virtue.

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
is that we are going to solve this crisis."
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)

Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)

2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

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

Steve Jobs

Edwin

unread,
May 31, 2006, 8:57:03 PM5/31/06
to

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> virtue.

I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
am I closed to counter-arguments.

You seem to have a need to characterize people who don't share your
opinions into an evil, lying, scheming mob who're out to destroy you
and everything you hold dear, at all cost.

You did some creative snipping below. I inserted the context you took
out.

"Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate
about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or
give them hope? What's the right mix?"

A: "I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head
is. "

> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
> the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
> is that we are going to solve this crisis."

"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept
the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to
a full-blown discussion of the solutions."

> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
> It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)

Or he could try to get you to read everything said there instead...

> Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
> nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
> wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)

Above you're acting as you accuse others of doing in the paragraph
below;

> 2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
> of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
> claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
> Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
> of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
> scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
> conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

You're mashing all your opponents into one indistinguishable lump
again... all you failed to do is toss out the words "hippies" and "tree
huggers..."

TheLetterK

unread,
May 31, 2006, 8:59:31 PM5/31/06
to

You can hardly blame them. Most of them have been indoctrinated into
this sort of belief almost since birth. "Unnatural == Bad", "Humans ==
Ultimate cause of global warming", etc, etc.

TheLetterK

unread,
May 31, 2006, 9:08:17 PM5/31/06
to
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:

>
> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> virtue.
>
> I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
> am I closed to counter-arguments.

I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
history.

>> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>
> "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
> reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
> full-blown discussion of the solutions."

None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
ecosystem.

Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
May 31, 2006, 9:08:32 PM5/31/06
to
On 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> virtue.
>
>I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>am I closed to counter-arguments.

Then you're a definite minority on that side.

>
>You seem to have a need to characterize people who don't share your
>opinions into an evil, lying, scheming mob who're out to destroy you
>and everything you hold dear, at all cost.
>
>You did some creative snipping below. I inserted the context you took
>out.
>
>"Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate
>about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or
>give them hope? What's the right mix?"
>
>A: "I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head
>is. "
>
>> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
>> the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
>> is that we are going to solve this crisis."
>
>"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept
>the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to
>a full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>
>> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
>> It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
>
>Or he could try to get you to read everything said there instead...

Everything you added was simply Al Gore's rationalization about why
its ok for him to lie. That was already present in the quote I
provided so the further elaboration on his part wasn't needed for
context.

>
>> Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
>> nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
>> wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
>
>Above you're acting as you accuse others of doing in the paragraph
>below;

I'm hardly engaging in unwarranted scare tactics by exposing Al Gore's
confession that he's lying about global warming.

>
>> 2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
>> of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
>> claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
>> Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
>> of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
>> scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
>> conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
>
>You're mashing all your opponents into one indistinguishable lump
>again... all you failed to do is toss out the words "hippies" and "tree
>huggers..."

I prefer the term 'stankin' hippies' for that sort.

George Graves

unread,
May 31, 2006, 9:38:00 PM5/31/06
to
In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:21:39 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> > virtue.
> >
> > "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> > bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> > to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> > they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> > believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> > presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
> > the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
> > is that we are going to solve this crisis."
> > http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
> > It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)

This is only part of the reason. I have a college buddy who is a
researcher in another, unrelated field, but he works for a large
midwestern university and he tells me that most researchers will say
anything to obtain and/or keep a grant. Most of the people in the
earth-related sciences feel that the adage: "the squeeky wheel gets the
grease" is a fruitful avenue to persue in getting grant providers'
attentions. In other words, make whatever it is you're working on,
whether it be global warming, global dimming, the earth's core swapping
poles, ozone depletion, etc., into a potential disaster of biblical
proportions in order to scare the pocketbooks into funding your research
further. Its all about the big spin and the media is always there to
take negative news and run with it.

--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.

Bob_S

unread,
May 31, 2006, 10:14:34 PM5/31/06
to
In article
<gmgraves-B6581F...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:

I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
blame, in whole or in part.

--
Cheers,

Bob S

John

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:09:13 PM5/31/06
to
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
Obviously you didn't read CAREFULLY what Gore said or you would not have
made such a fool of yourself yet again. People that argue against
global warming are rare and remind one of the scientists years ago that
argued the Earth was flat.

Wegie

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:14:18 PM5/31/06
to
In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:

> I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
> blame, in whole or in part.

yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal
and huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so
god like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the
ecosystem, surely these fires are not "man made".

wake up people, china alone burns 2.22 billion tons of standard coal a
year. the earth is on "unnatural" fire, it's now time to put industry to
work to solve & reverse this whole mess, before earth becomes the next
mars.

--
.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:24:11 PM5/31/06
to
On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:09:13 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> chose to

bless us with the following wisdom:

>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

LOL! I read what he said. He admits that he's lying to scare people.
Its quyite plain.

> People that argue against
>global warming are rare and remind one of the scientists years ago that
>argued the Earth was flat.

No one ever did. That's a 19th century myth. Now they do remind me of
those 'scientists' who were arguing during the 1970's that we were all
going to die in a new Ice Age...largely because its mostly the same
bunch.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:24:45 PM5/31/06
to
On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:14:18 -0600, Wegie <he...@northere.com> chose to

bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,

Will someone get Chicken Little here a helmet? 8)

John

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:30:03 PM5/31/06
to

Not only are you technically incompetent with computers but also
incompetent in Science and reading as well.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:36:15 PM5/31/06
to
On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:30:03 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> chose to

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

John

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:40:34 PM5/31/06
to
You stated ZERO FACTS. Therefore there was nothing to dispute.

ZnU

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:48:02 PM5/31/06
to

You guys sound like the Creationists. It's all a big conspiracy of the
scientific establishment. Right.

This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
a little whacky.

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

ZnU

unread,
May 31, 2006, 11:56:17 PM5/31/06
to
In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>
> >
> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> >> virtue.
> >
> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>
> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
> history.

The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
provided another neat example.

The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.

That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.

> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
> >
> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>
> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
> viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
> and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
> trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
> manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
> a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
> ecosystem.
>
> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.

Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
the long run.

It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 12:27:41 AM6/1/06
to
On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:56:17 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to

bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,


> TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> >> virtue.
>> >
>> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>>
>> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
>> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
>> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
>> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
>> history.
>
>The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
>deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
>provided another neat example.
>
>The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
>nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.
>
>That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
>be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
>he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.

The reasoning from the global warming believers is like standing at
the beach watching the waves lapping at the shore and suddenly
deciding that the next wave can only be caused by man and that its
going to kill us all.
When something has been happening for thousands of years there's no
reason to believe that its anything different when it happens in your
lifetime.

>
>> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>> >
>> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
>> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
>> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>>
>> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
>> viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
>> and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
>> trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
>> manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
>> a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
>> ecosystem.
>>
>> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
>> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
>
>Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
>can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
>the long run.
>
>It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.

We have a much greater capacity to adapt when climate changes than
they did in the past. It wouldn't be near as catastrophic as past
events.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 12:36:07 AM6/1/06
to
On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:48:02 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to

bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article

You're going to seriously claim that scientists never fudge their
outcomes for grant money? Get real. Its happened too many times for
anyone to believe that.

>
>This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
>I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
>a little whacky.

LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
requires execution.
The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
most likely to be one of their own.

Dave Fritzinger

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 1:05:46 AM6/1/06
to

Of course it happens. Scientists are human, with all the foibles that
humans have. However, science is, by its nature, self correcting.
Mistakes do get caught because scientists tend to repeat other
scientists experiments. If they can't replicate them, they then tell
other scientists.


>
> >
> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> >a little whacky.
>
> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
> doesn't even come close to explaining it.

Tell us, oh wise one, what evidence you base this on. Show us the
evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution. Don't worry, I'll wait.

> There's too many times where
> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.

Only to the scientific illiterate, Mayor. Again. show us the data (that
is hard data, not someone saying, this can't be possible) that
falsifies evolution. For that matter, come up with anything that shows
ID to be scientific. Present to us the theory of intelligent design.
Show us how it could be falsified. Show us what experimental data
supports it. This was asked of Michael Behe (the leading scientist who
supports ID) at the Dover trial, and the best he could do is admit
that, by the standards needed to make ID science, astrology would also
have to be considered a science.

> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
> requires execution.

Again, Mayor, show us the data that disproves evolution and common
descent. You won't do it because you can't.

> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
> most likely to be one of their own.

No, if someone comes up with data that disproves evolution, it will be
doubted at first, much as Temin and Baltimore were doubted when they
first demonstrated reverse transcriptase, or Alverez was doubted when
he presented the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were destroyed by a
comet strike 65 million years ago. But, as the data showed they were
correct, their hypotheses were accepted. And, the same thing would
happen with someone who "disproved" evolution. It is very doubtful it
will happen, though, since there is data collected over 150 years that
all supports evolution and common descent. And, not a single data point
that casts doubt on the theory. If you disagree, present some data,
instead of your usual spouting of nonsense, such as above.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

Alan Baker

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 1:06:54 AM6/1/06
to
In article <74cs72dltmthaqp2o...@4ax.com>,

Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> virtue.

Funny. That sounds like you...

Dave Fritzinger

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 1:09:55 AM6/1/06
to

That's funny. You put your own interpretation on what he said, IMHO. It
appears to me that he is saying you have to overwhelm them with facts,
not that you have to lie to them. But, that is because you want to
believe he is dishonest, while I believe in the honesty of people until
they prove otherwise.
[snip]

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 1:32:53 AM6/1/06
to
On 31 May 2006 22:05:46 -0700, "Dave Fritzinger"
<dfri...@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

You illustrate my point nicely, Dave. You sound like a Catholic that
has just come across someone who doubts Papal Infallibility.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 2:03:33 AM6/1/06
to
In article <ltqs72hchimd92r7a...@4ax.com>,

The current pattern of change does not appear to resemble pre-human
historical events. There has been extensive study of this. See,
climatologists get their grant money (to put this in terms you might
understand) whether global warming is caused by human activity or by
something else, and the answer to this question could have pretty big
implications, so they're more than willing to look at the full range of
possible causes.

It's a hell of a lot harder to move cities and vast agricultural
operations than it is for a bunch of nomads to change their migration
routes. Moreover, it won't just be sea levels rising a few millimeters a
year or something, which is a problem that, while costly, would be
manageable without catastrophe. It's very well established that higher
ocean temperatures produce more severe tropical storms, which means
there will be sudden violent weather events to deal with as well as slow
changes in sea level, optimal land use, etc.

I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
we're screwed.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 2:22:12 AM6/1/06
to
In article <f6rs721leu1lbh42n...@4ax.com>,

What you're positing is that something like 95% of climatologists are
engaged in a huge conspiracy to mislead everyone else. That's not quite
the same thing as a few scientists fudging their results, now is it?

I think you'll notice, if you actually examine the history of scientific
fraud, that it's virtually always other scientists -- not critics of
science -- who expose it.

> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> >a little whacky.
>
> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
> doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
> requires execution.
> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
> most likely to be one of their own.

The phrase "Darwin Fundamentalist" doesn't even make sense. The current
understanding of evolution has already moved well beyond Darwin. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis for an overview. There's
certainly room for new ideas; the discovery that horizontal gene
transfer (something with, incidentally, a purely Darwinian view does not
contemplate at all) can occur in 'higher' species has gained acceptance
within just the last 10 years, as new evidence has come to light.

The reason ID isn't getting anywhere isn't because of some Darwinian
orthodoxy; it's because none of the proposals of the ID movement have
any kind of scientific merit. In particular, irreducible complexity and
specified complexity, which are supposed to lead to a supported 'design
inference' are fundamentally flawed, and not even in particularly subtle
ways. ID is based, when you get right down to it, on nothing more than
intuition -- intuition which not everyone shares.

Tim Smith

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:51:05 AM6/1/06
to
In article <gYsfg.32$065....@news.uswest.net>, Wegie wrote:
> In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
>
>> I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
>> blame, in whole or in part.
>
> yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
> huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
> like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
> surely these fires are not "man made".

Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.

--
--Tim Smith

Wegie

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 10:54:07 AM6/1/06
to
In article <127te49...@news.supernews.com>,
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> > yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
> > huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
> > like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
> > surely these fires are not "man made".
>
> Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
> had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
> Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.

yeah, airplanes is where most EVERYONE misses / forgets the impact, it's
an out of sight / out of mind kind of thing. About 1 gallon a second is
burned in 747-787s, and there are always about 200 of them in the air at
any one time, and 1000's of smaller planes are always up in the air too.

they are invisibly lacing the planet with fire 24 hours a day.

for a simple round trip flight from Chicago to London, produces 358.00
Tonnes of CO2, (250 people) and similar length flights happen 100's of
times a day. pretty scary when you start to understand the problem.

http://www.climatecare.org/britishairways/index.cfm

--
.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 12:27:48 PM6/1/06
to
In article <lcDfg.5$EL5...@news.uswest.net>, Wegie <he...@northere.com>
wrote:

A large plane that's 60-100% full typically burns less fuel per
passenger-mile than a car with one (sometimes two) people in it.

Airplanes aren't exactly environmentally friendly, but when you take
everything into account they're a much smaller problem than cars, and
probably one that would be a lot easier to fix, since moving planes to
hydrogen would only require changing fueling facilities at airports.
That's not a trivial task by any means, but compared with converting a
significant percentage of the gas stations in the world it's fairly
straightforward.

Airbus is already working on some basic R&D for hydrogen-fueled
passenger planes.

Message has been deleted

Dave Fritzinger

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 1:27:44 PM6/1/06
to

That's funny. You sound like someone who is totally unable to refute
any of the points I made. And, we both know why that is, dont' we?

Actually, you are pretty funny. You tried to phrase things so that if
anyone refutes what you said (which wasn't hard, since what you said
was so much BS), you could come back with the exact line you tried to
use on me. It is a pretty transparent dodge, though, as it is quite
obvious that you just don't have the ammo.

You are being more than a bit dishonest here, Mayor.

George Graves

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 2:19:34 PM6/1/06
to
In article <znu-D4806D.2...@individual.net>,
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:

Its not a conspiracy, its just the way not-for-profit research works
these days.

> This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> a little whacky.

I didn't say that I agree with the Mayor about global warming, I just
said that researchers need grants to fund their research and they spin
their proposals to make sure that they get it. We all know that the
press thrives on bad news, so they are going to take the gist of these
proposals of doom and gloom and run with it.

George Graves

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 2:25:18 PM6/1/06
to

That's my opinion as well. And while there is some evidence to support
that the phenomenon is caused or at least exacerbated by human
activities, its hardly conclusive.

George Graves

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 2:32:50 PM6/1/06
to
In article <gYsfg.32$065....@news.uswest.net>,
Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:

What makes you think that such a climate shift IS reversable? That if
the whole world stopped burning stuff for energy, that the earth would
start to cool? This scenario is highly unlikely anyway. Those Chinese
burn 2.2 billion tons of coal because/year because they have no other
way of keeping warm. Its like trying to get Brazilians to stop
burning/clearing the rain forest by telling them that its damaging the
ecosystem. While they might understand the concept on an intellectual
level, the answer will always come back that their families need to eat
NOW, and that clearing this new field is the only way to assure a crop
next year (because the jungle, paradoxically, has poor soil that can
only sustain a few crops before being depleted).

George Graves

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 2:33:28 PM6/1/06
to

The air got clearer, that's for sure.

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:19:57 PM6/1/06
to
On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:56:17 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,
> TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> >> virtue.
>> >
>> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>>
>> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
>> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
>> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
>> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
>> history.
>
> The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
> deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
> provided another neat example.
>
> The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
> nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.

Except the Earth's average temperature has *always* fluctuated , and we
aren't even into the high side of the scale yet (and these changes
generally occur fairly rapidly, geologically speaking). Can you explain
why the average global temperature between 1100 AD and 1400 AD was higher
than it is today (by quite a bit, in fact)? Surely you aren't suggesting
that there was heavy industrialization during the middle ages.

>
> That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
> be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
> he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.

Can you provide any evidence that demonstrates a positive correlation
between global temperature increase and human-contributed greenhouse gas
emissions?

>
>> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>> >
>> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
>> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
>> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>>
>> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
>> viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
>> and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
>> trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
>> manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
>> a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
>> ecosystem.
>>
>> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
>> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
>
> Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
> can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
> the long run.
>
> It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.

How? We lose a bit of land, but other land becomes more fertile. Some
deserts get dryer, but some grasslands get more rain, etc. Global warming
is going to occur. Nothing we can do will prevent it, or even
significantly delay it. Human civilization could end tomorrow, and the
Earth's temperature would still keep getting warmer.

George Graves

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:35:49 PM6/1/06
to
In article <znu-76346B.0...@individual.net>,
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:

>
> I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
> causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
> e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
> we're screwed.
>
> --

I don't think that there is much we can do about it EITHER way. While I
don't discount the possibility that global warming is caused
anthropogenically, or is at least exacerbated by anthropogenic activity,
I do feel that the evidence is not real compelling AT THIS TIME. OTOH, I
also am not sure what knowing this for a fact will do for us. The
population of this planet continues to grow at a largely unchecked rate.
These new arrivals need heat in winter, fires to cook their food, and
eventually, as second and third-world infrastructures catch-up to the
first-world, energy for their cars, electric lights, etc. Until then,
Chinese peasants will continue to burn coal and coke for their fires,
Brazilian farmers will continue their slash and burn tactics on the rain
forests because that's their only source of livelihood and there is
nothing on the horizon that could change either situation in the next 50
years at least. In fact, these greenhouse gas emissions are, if
anything, going to get a lot worse before they get any better. Do you
agree? While at this moment, we Americans use more resources per capita
than any other nation, the rest of the world is rapidly catching up with
us. How can anything be done? We could help by abandoning our cars, but
since there is no infrastructure that can replace them, its not likely.
Changing over completely to hydrogen to either burn (produces no
greehouse gases) or convert to electricity using fuel cells is probably
50 years off, and still that would only affect the contribution by the
developed nations while population in the underdeveloped nations along
with their increasing energy needs continue to grow at unprecedented
rates.

Again the question comes down to population. If there is too much
greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere to keep the climate
"stable", then the reason is that there are too many people here with
energy needs. There can be no argument that I'm aware of that says that
a smaller world population wouldn't significantly reduce the amount of
greenhouse emissions. If you know of one, please explain. Negative
population growth through financial penalties is also the easiest of all
the proposed global warming remedies to implement. No new technology is
needed, no changes in infrastructure, just laws limiting the size of
families. If each couple, starting today, could only have ONE offspring,
The current world popualtion would be about halved in less than 100
years. This is a lot easier to do than it will be to get over a billion
Chinese to stop burning coal and coke or getting Brazilian farmers to
stop burning the rainforests at an alarming rate. Meanwhile, we can
continue to work on technological "fixes" as well, which, when coupled
with lower populations, will result in significantly lower greenhouse
effect. Will this reverse global warming? If its anthropogenic, the
answer is "maybe". If its wholly natural, the answer is an emphatic no.

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:39:44 PM6/1/06
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:54:07 -0600, Wegie wrote:

> In article <127te49...@news.supernews.com>,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> > yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
>> > huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
>> > like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
>> > surely these fires are not "man made".
>>
>> Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
>> had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
>> Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
>
> yeah, airplanes is where most EVERYONE misses / forgets the impact, it's
> an out of sight / out of mind kind of thing. About 1 gallon a second is
> burned in 747-787s, and there are always about 200 of them in the air at
> any one time, and 1000's of smaller planes are always up in the air too.

Actually, the temperatures went up when the planes were grounded. The idea
was that the contrails reflected a significant amount of energy back into
space. There's actually some evidence that industrial output has a cooling
effect (it increases the amount of particulate matter in the
atmosphere, thereby reflecting more energy back away from the Earth).

>
> they are invisibly lacing the planet with fire 24 hours a day.
>
> for a simple round trip flight from Chicago to London, produces 358.00
> Tonnes of CO2

Yes, your point? There's a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. 358 tons of CO2
is completely insignificant, even when multiplied by all flights of that
length that would take place all week. Most of it doesn't even build up in
the atmosphere.

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:41:50 PM6/1/06
to

Unfortunately, it's also true. When your funding is directly linked to
your ability to convince people of an impending disaster, you tend to
emphasize the dangers, ignore the benefits, and shove the discrepancies
under the rug.

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:43:31 PM6/1/06
to

No, it doesn't. ID makes no sense in any context, or in any form.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:45:07 PM6/1/06
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:51:05 -0000, Tim Smith
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:

>In article <gYsfg.32$065....@news.uswest.net>, Wegie wrote:

Jet engines produce a lot of heat. They're run the hardest during
takeoffs at airports. The official temperature measurements are taken
at airports. You do the math, Sparky.

TheLetterK

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 3:45:58 PM6/1/06
to

Before global warming became a big craze, how many climatologists got any
serious amount of funding? How about after the global warming scare? Self
interest is a powerful motivator. I don't think they're flat out
falsifying data, but I think many of their conclusions, theories, and
assertions have been made with the intent to draw more funding.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:02:14 PM6/1/06
to

The idea that the entire scientific establishment is engaged in a huge
conspiracy about global warming to protect grant money is one of the
most ludicrous ideas that has ever been advanced in this newsgroup --
and that's a fairly impressive feat.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:03:55 PM6/1/06
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:22:12 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to

Its nowhere near 95%.

> That's not quite
>the same thing as a few scientists fudging their results, now is it?

Its also not true.

>I think you'll notice, if you actually examine the history of scientific
>fraud, that it's virtually always other scientists -- not critics of
>science -- who expose it.

And it is being exposed. But the True Believers and their allies in
the liberal press are doing their best to suppress them. Remember the
stories about how there were no peer reviewed articles doubting
manmade catastrophic global warming? They were all over the place. How
many did you see when a researcher called bullshit on it and named a
whole slew of peer reviewed articles on that very topic?
Of course that goes back to point one I made. Global Warming
Fundamentalist think lying about their cause is a virtue.

>
>> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
>> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
>> >a little whacky.
>>
>> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
>> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
>> doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
>> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
>> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
>> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
>> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
>> requires execution.
>> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
>> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
>> most likely to be one of their own.
>
>The phrase "Darwin Fundamentalist" doesn't even make sense.

Sure it does. They are true believers in their Holy Writ and no one
should dare question them! The early ones even went so far as to
invent the myth about people believing in a flat earth for the sole
purpose of having an insult to hurl at those who doubted the validity
of their faith.
You really should deal with these hatemongers sometime while
pretending to not be one and you'll see what I mean. You can discuss
anything with them, anything at all, except evolution and they'll be
as normal as can be. But the minute you make it known that you don''t
march in lockstep with the Darwinian Faith you'll see the sneer appear
on their lips, their faces will contort into a mask of rage and while
they're glowering at you the vilest of insults will begin coming your
way out of their mouths. Its quite a sight.

>The current
>understanding of evolution has already moved well beyond Darwin. See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis for an overview. There's
>certainly room for new ideas; the discovery that horizontal gene
>transfer (something with, incidentally, a purely Darwinian view does not
>contemplate at all) can occur in 'higher' species has gained acceptance
>within just the last 10 years, as new evidence has come to light.
>
>The reason ID isn't getting anywhere isn't because of some Darwinian
>orthodoxy; it's because none of the proposals of the ID movement have
>any kind of scientific merit. In particular, irreducible complexity and
>specified complexity, which are supposed to lead to a supported 'design
>inference' are fundamentally flawed, and not even in particularly subtle
>ways. ID is based, when you get right down to it, on nothing more than
>intuition -- intuition which not everyone shares.

--

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:17:12 PM6/1/06
to

Why are you repeating the exact same faulty logic I just called you on?
You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
trend.

> > That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
> > be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
> > he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.
>
> Can you provide any evidence that demonstrates a positive correlation
> between global temperature increase and human-contributed greenhouse gas
> emissions?

There has been extensive research into this, and the quick summary is
that the current warming trend matches up better with what the models
based on anthropogenic greenhouse emissions predict than with previous
historical warming events.

The "bit of land" we lose happens to contain quite a few major cities,
which developed in low-lying costal areas because of the economic
incentives of being port cities. Moreover, human civilization cannot
tolerate significant reductions in agricultural output even over very
short time scales. And we know we have enough arable land to feed
everyone now. We don't know we will in the aftermath of climate changes.
Maybe we'll have more. But maybe we'll have less. Risking it is not a
good bed.

> Global warming is going to occur. Nothing we can do will prevent it,
> or even significantly delay it. Human civilization could end
> tomorrow, and the Earth's temperature would still keep getting
> warmer.

You're making baseless assertions.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:17:30 PM6/1/06
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:03:33 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to

The Global Warming Fundamentalists have told so many lies that its
hard to believe anything they say. I still want my question answered.
Why is this minor climate change caused by man when none of the ones
in the past that were much, much more drastic weren't?
I had an interesting conversation with a friend who is a True
Believer. I forget the exact announcement but I believe was some
breathless declaration on how some recent year was the warmest in 1200
years somewhere. He was quoting this and using it to 'prove' that we
had destroyed the atmosphere and that we were all going to die. I
looked at him and asked him if he thought the world had ended in the
year AD 800. Of course he said 'No.' So I asked him if this particular
temparture hadn't been the harbinger of DOOM! then why did he think
that it was now? His only answer was to blather on about how 'evil'
modern civilization was. Or at least I think it was. I pretty much
quit listening after it became obvious that he really didn't have an
answer.

We don't need to. We can keep everything in place and adapt.

> Moreover, it won't just be sea levels rising a few millimeters a
>year or something, which is a problem that, while costly, would be
>manageable without catastrophe. It's very well established that higher
>ocean temperatures produce more severe tropical storms,

We're entering the upside of the storm cycle anyway.

> which means
>there will be sudden violent weather events to deal with as well as slow
>changes in sea level, optimal land use, etc.

You mean like there's always been?

>
>I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
>causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
>e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
>we're screwed.

The variations that we're seeing are minor. They're well within the
normal range. We're far from 'screwed'.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:18:20 PM6/1/06
to
On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:40:34 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> chose to

bless us with the following wisdom:

>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:30:03 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> chose to


>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>

>>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:09:13 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> chose to


>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>

>>>>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>>>>>> virtue.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>>>>>> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>>>>>> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>>>>>> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>>>>>> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>>>>>> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
>>>>>> the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
>>>>>> is that we are going to solve this crisis."

>>>>>> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
>>>>>> It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
>>>>>> nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
>>>>>> wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
>>>>>> of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
>>>>>> claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
>>>>>> Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
>>>>>> of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
>>>>>> scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
>>>>>> conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
>>>>>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you didn't read CAREFULLY what Gore said or you would not have
>>>>> made such a fool of yourself yet again.
>>>> LOL! I read what he said. He admits that he's lying to scare people.
>>>> Its quyite plain.
>>>>

>>>>> People that argue against
>>>>> global warming are rare and remind one of the scientists years ago that
>>>>> argued the Earth was flat.
>>>> No one ever did. That's a 19th century myth. Now they do remind me of
>>>> those 'scientists' who were arguing during the 1970's that we were all
>>>> going to die in a new Ice Age...largely because its mostly the same
>>>> bunch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not only are you technically incompetent with computers but also
>>> incompetent in Science and reading as well.
>>
>> Unable to counter my arguments with facts, John resorts to
>> namecalling.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>You stated ZERO FACTS. Therefore there was nothing to dispute.

There's plenty of facts for those with the powers of reading
comprehension.

George Graves

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:24:45 PM6/1/06
to
In article <znu-35A1D1.1...@individual.net>,
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:

Why would a common practice necessarily be a conspiracy? That's like
saying that because millions of people use an alarm clock to wake them
up for work in the morning, that its a conspiracy or that people who
watch "Desperate Housewives" instead of a "NOVA" on global warming are
conspiring to ignore global warming. If its common practise for
researchers to exagerate in order to get funding, then its common
practise for researchers to exagerate to get funding. There is no hint
of collusion or conspiracy in that.

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:27:48 PM6/1/06
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:43:31 -0400, TheLetterK <n...@none.net> chose to

It because of these disagreements and the lack of importance of
biological studies in most people's lives that I say we admit that
we're at loggerheads and simply disengage. We're wasting too many
resources on this fight and its getting nowhere.
Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
their kids in.

Dave Fritzinger

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:32:48 PM6/1/06
to

Actually, it is only getting nowhere among the ignorant. Scientists,
who actually study evolution know that it is the cause of the diversity
of life on Earth. It is only the religious fundimentalists who refuse
to accept that fact. If you go and actually study the data, you would
realize that fact.

> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
> their kids in.

Yeah, and in a few years, we will have two groups of people in the
country. The burger flippers (the ones who attended the anti-science
schools) and those who are educated. It is clear which one you want to
be...

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:54:16 PM6/1/06
to
In article
<gmgraves-E59764...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Nuclear fission is safe, reasonably cheap, and is here now. It's quite
plausible for developing nations as well as developed nations. China has
a huge nuclear power program underway, because they recognize exactly
the problem you're discussing.

There are even ways to deal with nations which we might not necessarily
trust with nuclear material. There are proposals for building sealed,
tamper-proof, self-maintaining rectors which could be delivered by ship,
and provide power for 50 years while storing waste internally. Or we can
use reactors to produce hydrogen or methanol or whatever, and ship that
to them.

Add in wind power, which is already about as cheap as coal power. While
too variable over short time spans to provide a significant fraction of
power to the grid, it could be used to produce hydrogen. Same deal for
solar, except that it presently costs 5-6 times as much as wind. One
neat thing about wind and solar is that they lend themselves to
decentralized deployed, which reduces transmission losses and may lead
to greater reliability.

If hydrogen turns out to be too inconvenient to use as a vehicle fuel,
which seems possible, use ethanol. In the United States, where it's made
from corn, it's not particularly cheap or efficient; government support
of it is basically a subsidy for ADM. But in Brazil, where it's made
from sugar cane, it's a very different matter. Ethanol production in
Brazil is energy-positive, carbon neutral, and ethanol ends up costing
about $0.63/gallon. It has a somewhat lower energy density than
gasoline, so maybe $0.80 of ethanol is equivalent to a gallon of gas.
Seems like a pretty good deal these days, no? And this is not some
hypothetical thing that won't scale up. Brazil has replaced 40% of the
gasoline used in cars with ethanol already.

Moreover, ethanol can be mixed with gasoline, and is largely compatible
with existing gasoline infrastructure, so there's no reason why a switch
has to happen all at once. It's not too hard to build cars which will
run on 100% gasoline, 100% ethanol, or some blend. Many vehicles sold
now in the US can already run on E85, which is 85% ethanol.

> Again the question comes down to population.

Even if you were to cut global population in half, it's unlikely you
would solve the problem. Particularly since e.g. cheaper energy would be
likely to lead to higher per-capita energy consumption.

[snip]

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:57:18 PM6/1/06
to
In article
<gmgraves-55A15E...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:

But as I pointed out, even if this kooky idea is right, and 95% of
climatologists are misleading everyone to get grant money, that still
doesn't explain why they say that global warming is caused by humans. In
fact, it seems to me they'd be better off pretending they didn't have
any idea whether humans were responsible, so they could justify big
studies to settle the question.

> > This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> > I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> > a little whacky.
>
> I didn't say that I agree with the Mayor about global warming, I just
> said that researchers need grants to fund their research and they spin
> their proposals to make sure that they get it. We all know that the
> press thrives on bad news, so they are going to take the gist of these
> proposals of doom and gloom and run with it.

--

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 4:59:11 PM6/1/06
to
On 1 Jun 2006 13:32:48 -0700, "Dave Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com>

Preach it, Brother!

>> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
>> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
>> their kids in.
>
>Yeah, and in a few years, we will have two groups of people in the
>country. The burger flippers (the ones who attended the anti-science
>schools) and those who are educated. It is clear which one you want to
>be...

Because all of those engineers, accountants, CEOs, machinists, writers
and other non-biology professionals are doing nothing but flipping
burgers.
Do you have to work at being this big of a hysterical ninny or does it
come natural for you?

Mayor of R'lyeh

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:00:28 PM6/1/06
to
On 1 Jun 2006 10:27:44 -0700, "Dave Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com>

You need to look up 'dishonest'. It doesn't mean 'disagrees with
Fritzinger' which is how you use it.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:07:36 PM6/1/06
to
In article <o8hu72p1ac8v0ad6i...@4ax.com>,

It doesn't matter what the exact number is. Your conspiracy theory is
not particularly more plausable if it's 50%.

> > That's not quite
> >the same thing as a few scientists fudging their results, now is it?
>
> Its also not true.
>
> >I think you'll notice, if you actually examine the history of scientific
> >fraud, that it's virtually always other scientists -- not critics of
> >science -- who expose it.
>
> And it is being exposed. But the True Believers and their allies in
> the liberal press are doing their best to suppress them. Remember the
> stories about how there were no peer reviewed articles doubting
> manmade catastrophic global warming? They were all over the place. How
> many did you see when a researcher called bullshit on it and named a
> whole slew of peer reviewed articles on that very topic?
> Of course that goes back to point one I made. Global Warming
> Fundamentalist think lying about their cause is a virtue.

You're probably talking about the Oreskes December 2004 essay in Science
and Peiser's response. Unfortunately for you, the only bullshit involved
in that case is Peiser's. Peiser claimed to have found 34 papers which
rejected the anthropogenic view, but an examination of the abstracts
doesn't seem to back up his claims.

See http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/ for full abstracts, and links
to four analyses by people who know what they're talking about.

> >> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> >> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> >> >a little whacky.
> >>
> >> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
> >> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
> >> doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
> >> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
> >> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
> >> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
> >> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
> >> requires execution.
> >> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
> >> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
> >> most likely to be one of their own.
> >
> >The phrase "Darwin Fundamentalist" doesn't even make sense.
>
> Sure it does. They are true believers in their Holy Writ and no one
> should dare question them!

You should really try responding to my argument instead of my thesis
statement, Mayor. It's still quoted below, if you want to try again.

[snip]

> >The current understanding of evolution has already moved well beyond
> >Darwin. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis for an
> >overview. There's certainly room for new ideas; the discovery that
> >horizontal gene transfer (something with, incidentally, a purely
> >Darwinian view does not contemplate at all) can occur in 'higher'
> >species has gained acceptance within just the last 10 years, as new
> >evidence has come to light.
> >
> >The reason ID isn't getting anywhere isn't because of some Darwinian
> >orthodoxy; it's because none of the proposals of the ID movement
> >have any kind of scientific merit. In particular, irreducible
> >complexity and specified complexity, which are supposed to lead to a
> >supported 'design inference' are fundamentally flawed, and not even
> >in particularly subtle ways. ID is based, when you get right down to
> >it, on nothing more than intuition -- intuition which not everyone
> >shares.

--

Dave Fritzinger

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:08:20 PM6/1/06
to

Not at all. I tried to answer your objections, and you just ignored my
answers and gave your "fundy" answer above. You did not even try to
defend your assertions wrt evolution. Instead, you accused me of being
a "Darwinian fundamentalist", whatever that is. Perhaps you need to
look up the definition of dishonest. In this case, ISTM that the
definition fits you to a tee.

BTW, if you are unwilling to defend your points, you would look one
heckofa lot better if you didn't bother to make them.

Dave Fritzinger

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:11:20 PM6/1/06
to

Unable to refute anything I have said, the Mayor tries to change the
subject.


>
> >> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
> >> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
> >> their kids in.
> >
> >Yeah, and in a few years, we will have two groups of people in the
> >country. The burger flippers (the ones who attended the anti-science
> >schools) and those who are educated. It is clear which one you want to
> >be...
>
> Because all of those engineers, accountants, CEOs, machinists, writers
> and other non-biology professionals are doing nothing but flipping
> burgers.
> Do you have to work at being this big of a hysterical ninny or does it
> come natural for you?

You are not one to talk. Indeed, you seem to come across as a ninny
(and, I am being kind in that description) every time you attempt to
discuss science. What I am trying to say is that you can either teach
science, or not teach science. If you are going to teach science, you
need to teach all of it, not just the popular parts. After all, we
don't get a vote on how the universe works.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:15:11 PM6/1/06
to
In article <d1iu72lijls1dv41t...@4ax.com>,

This question has been extensively answered in the scientific
literature, Mayor. It's a major area of study, and it's trivial to find
references. Wikipedia links to a few:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

> I had an interesting conversation with a friend who is a True
> Believer. I forget the exact announcement but I believe was some
> breathless declaration on how some recent year was the warmest in 1200
> years somewhere. He was quoting this and using it to 'prove' that we
> had destroyed the atmosphere and that we were all going to die. I
> looked at him and asked him if he thought the world had ended in the
> year AD 800.

The scientific consensus on the cause of global warming is not based on
such trivial data points, Mayor. The media and politicians might like to
repeat them, because unlike actual climate science they're easy for the
public to understand, but they're not really relevant.

[snip]

> >> >> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
> >> >> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
> >> >
> >> >Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
> >> >can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
> >> >the long run.
> >> >
> >> >It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.
> >>
> >> We have a much greater capacity to adapt when climate changes than
> >> they did in the past. It wouldn't be near as catastrophic as past events.
> >
> >It's a hell of a lot harder to move cities and vast agricultural
> >operations than it is for a bunch of nomads to change their migration
> >routes.
>
> We don't need to. We can keep everything in place and adapt.

Oh, sure, why not? We could just convert cities from streets to canals.
I mean, it works for Venice, right?

> > Moreover, it won't just be sea levels rising a few millimeters a
> > year or something, which is a problem that, while costly, would be
> > manageable without catastrophe. It's very well established that
> > higher ocean temperatures produce more severe tropical storms,
>
> We're entering the upside of the storm cycle anyway.
>
> > which means there will be sudden violent weather events to deal
> > with as well as slow changes in sea level, optimal land use, etc.
>
> You mean like there's always been?

Aside from the greater intensity and increased frequency, yes.

> >I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
> >causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
> >e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
> >we're screwed.
>
> The variations that we're seeing are minor. They're well within the
> normal range. We're far from 'screwed'.

Oh, well. If you say so.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:16:45 PM6/1/06
to
In article
<gmgraves-0EB753...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:

A common practice to deceive the public, which nobody reveals, would
require a conspiracy.

ZnU

unread,
Jun 1, 2006, 5:22:19 PM6/1/06