Al Those Great Scientists Here

SLAVE of THE STATE

On May 7, 1:28*pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 12:52*am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> p.s. *If anyone gives a crap, ...
>
> > At this point, the most important thing is not the correctness of the
> > physical science, but of the social science. *The uncertainty is
> > vanishing when it comes to the question of whether or not sufficient
> > (and "important") people give a crap about the more important
> > questions raised by social science and the implications.
>
> I've never seen "correctness" used as an adjective describing "social
> science" before. *Interesting concept. *I guess the second quote from Salma
> Hyek explains that. *
>
> The social and economic science of climate change is really very simple, to
> avoid making any sacrifices during our lifetimes, most of us are betting
> that the really bad effects will occur after we are dead. *

Your response exemplifies why you scare me more than AGW.

SLAVE of THE STATE

On May 7, 4:41*pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> Retards without political power are annoying too.

But they don't legally steal.


The non-prevalent view powerpoint slide for Mr. Mambo:
1. For all I know, AGW could be real (or not).
2. For all I know, projected dire consequences could be true (or not).
3. The people who screech about global warming are scarier (definitely
true) than global warming (if true) and its consequences (if true).

dustoyevsky@mac.com

On May 7, 1:04*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cd8444e3-6721-4a43-8725-764386a5f4bf@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 10:00 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > And of course those same sort of uneducated dolts (snip)
>
> > Mirror time, TK (IRT the usual bail-out when your game is called on
> > you-- this time, a "source" getting both its titties caught in the
> > proverbial wringer)!
>
> Let me see, if I claim that people who are making absolutely false claims
> about climate change aren't qualified you insist that I need to be
> qualified?

The list is phony. Maybe not Rovian, but a good smear (lie)
nonetheless.

Hint: you can tell that some of those on the list don't agree with the
standpoint of the list-makers because they ask (some in no uncertain
terms) that their names be removed from said list.

We could wonder how many of the names on the list would in fact demand
to be removed if they even knew in the first place that their names
had been placed on the list. --D-y

Tom Kunich

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote in message
news:UIadnZFKwK-oo7_VnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Retards without political power are annoying too.

You're a retard without much of anything:

Global warming MAY be occurring - if so it is a natural process that man has
essentially no connection to. More than likely it is nothing more than
another warming phase caused by the sun. The fact is that historically we're
on the edge of another ice age.

While humans MAY be increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere, it is a
tiny amount compared to natural processes and all of human history's
addition can be more than doubled with a single grand volcanic eruption.

The government and its outlying freaks are interested ONLY in gaining power
by declaring emergencies where none exist.

Those here that are crying Global Warming are mentally deranged idiots who
would like nothing more than to see mankind in ashes. They are willing to
cry wolf because they're the sort of losers who do such things.

Tom Kunich

<dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote in message
news:ad8ee411-fe7b-47aa-89ec-a8bddd0923e9@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> The list is phony. Maybe not Rovian, but a good smear (lie)
> nonetheless.
>
> Hint: you can tell that some of those on the list don't agree with the
> standpoint of the list-makers because they ask (some in no uncertain
> terms) that their names be removed from said list.

I've got news for you - MANY scientists asked for their names to be removed
from the UN document because not only did they NOT agree with the findings
but the committee management even stated that they changed the papers to
suit their opinions.

Funny you didn't make anything out of that.

Fred Fredburger

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On May 7, 4:41 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
>> Retards without political power are annoying too.
>
> But they don't legally steal.
>
>
> The non-prevalent view powerpoint slide for Mr. Mambo:
> 1. For all I know, AGW could be real (or not).
> 2. For all I know, projected dire consequences could be true (or not).
> 3. The people who screech about global warming are scarier (definitely
> true) than global warming (if true) and its consequences (if true).

You've got a point here.

Fred Fredburger

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote in message
> news:UIadnZFKwK-oo7_VnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> Retards without political power are annoying too.
>
> You're a retard without much of anything:

Ah! Glad you got your obligatory insult out of the way up front!

> Global warming MAY be occurring - if so it is a natural process that man
> has essentially no connection to. More than likely it is nothing more
> than another warming phase caused by the sun. The fact is that
> historically we're on the edge of another ice age.
>
> While humans MAY be increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere, it is
> a tiny amount compared to natural processes and all of human history's
> addition can be more than doubled with a single grand volcanic eruption.
>
> The government and its outlying freaks are interested ONLY in gaining
> power by declaring emergencies where none exist.
>
> Those here that are crying Global Warming are mentally deranged idiots
> who would like nothing more than to see mankind in ashes. They are
> willing to cry wolf because they're the sort of losers who do such things.
>

I don't know about all that, but I agree that some of the proposals for
solving the "problem" would be destructive. I wouldn't be surprised if
temperature changes are found have more to do with land use than is
generally believed. Not that I'm claiming expertise here, I'm mostly
distrustful of easy explanations. Those 2 viewpoints that keep showing
up look suspiciously like opposing strawmen than anything else.

Tom Kunich

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote in message
news:xP-dnURjaapB0r_VnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> I don't know about all that, but I agree that some of the proposals for
> solving the "problem" would be destructive.

Just try listening to these nutjobs talking. Ted Turner has gone so far as
to say that we ought to be GLAD that disease is killing so many in Africa.
Al Gore has hinted that we ought to stop feeding the world.

On TV one nutjob said that we ought to stop ALL electrical generation in the
USA. What do you suppose that would do?

The fact is that these people are pushing policies that would end up in
massive amounts of death.

If you prefer to ally yourself with people like that don't be surprised when
someone takes extreme actions against them and includes you.

Oh, wait, I'M the bad guy because I don't agree with the great climate
scientists here.

Howard Kveck

In article <I7ednbWaQIq6YrzVnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
> news:96a59e86-8221-4732-9677-c541b6297d0a@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > "I think a major reason why intellectuals tend to move towards
> > collectivism is that the collectivist answer is a simple one. If
> > there's something wrong, pass a law and do something about it." --
> > Milton Friedman
>
> Let's not forget that those here who think of themselves as "Liberals" are
> more than willing to support absolutely fascist techniques to get their way.

"Fascist" - I don't think that word means what you think it does.

> On TV, Al Gore and Ted Turner have stated that the whole world is going to
> die unless we are willing to murder more than half of them. And they
> advocate methods of that murder.

You have the most vivid imagination, Tommy.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung

On May 7, 6:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> Just try listening to these nutjobs talking.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....eat.htm#Science

Mike Jacoubowsky

>> Most people agree there was
>> a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
>> means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.
>
> Well, Benny, good old CO2Science is so bad that some of your buddies
> attacked it and tried to erase all of the data. Too bad for people like
> you that actual records and papers prove you wrong most of the time.

But you see, that's exactly the problem. Being right "most" of the time
doesn't cut it when that one time you're wrong, it's fatal. So that's why we
go out of our way (or should anyway) to minimize even the possibility that
that far-fetched idea could actually have something to it.

Tom, something I learned a while ago has served me quite well. The more
certain I am that I'm right about something, the more likely it is that I'm
wrong. Always take the other side seriously. Consider that maybe there's
some reason they believe the goofy things they do. And consider that a
healthy dose of crow, eaten every once in a while, is a normal part of a
healthy life.

If you haven't seen it yet, rent "The Fog of War." I recommend it to
everyone. Great piece of work, regardless of what you thought/think of
Robert McNamara.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Tom Kunich

"Robert Chung" <rechung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9812054a-bd9d-4165-a365-ded93c82c1e8@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 6:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> Just try listening to these nutjobs talking.
>
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....eat.htm#Science

I'm really impressed. You're offering ADVICE from science fiction writers as
equal to politicians demanding that we take actions that would essentially
murder a significant portion of our population as well as the world's.

The really strange part of this is that you're supposed to be an educated
man and you don't seem able to tell the difference between those two.

Fred Fredburger

Tom Kunich wrote:

> Al Gore has hinted that we ought to stop feeding the world.
>

I'm not sure it's "our" responsibility to do that but it's OK with me if
we do. It's all about balancing priorities appropriately. So far, I've
seen little in the way of actual policy proposals that address this. I
suspect politicians know they'd be destroying their careers if they
advocated policies that dealt with CO2 emissions in s substantiative way.

The actual policy proposals sound more like:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/...e/view/?id=7467

This proposal does nothing to discourage CO2 emissions and arguably
encourages it to the extent that prices are held down and assuming any
kind of price elasticity to gasoline demand.

I'm not trying to pick on Hillary or her proposal, I'm just think it's
typical of what you can expect from any politician. They like creating
the appearance they're doing you a favor, they're unlikely to ask you to
sacrifice.

Fred Fredburger

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> If you haven't seen it yet, rent "The Fog of War." I recommend it to
> everyone. Great piece of work, regardless of what you thought/think of
> Robert McNamara.

That's a great movie. Not as one sided as a lot of documentaries.