TK was exactly right. OT

Robert Chung

On Jun 25, 10:22*am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > *Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> Your fringe at work:
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25...atant-solitary/

> http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/oig-opr-in...n-hire-slip.pdf

BTW, the latter link has the worst charts ever.

Robert Chung

On Jun 25, 10:22*am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25...atant-solitary/

OTOH, they do that to themselves, too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

Robert Chung

On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> *Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyres...final_61608.pdf

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Jun 25, 5:28*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Not sure if I would've supported buying/taking ANWR, but now that I,
> through my involuntary contribution, own it, and I'm gonna pretend the
> system might work, then I'm happier treating it like a painting on a
> wall. Just as much fun to look at and does a lot more good though.
> Once in a while, if enough of us scream at them, they actually listen.
> *They took our money, they bought it, we own it.

Cool, I own ANWR. Drill it.

Cool, I own saguaro cactus. Doze it.

Paul G.

On Jun 25, 11:28*am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 5:28*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Not sure if I would've supported buying/taking ANWR, but now that I,
> > through my involuntary contribution, own it, and I'm gonna pretend the
> > system might work, then I'm happier treating it like a painting on a
> > wall. Just as much fun to look at and does a lot more good though.
> > Once in a while, if enough of us scream at them, they actually listen.
> > *They took our money, they bought it, we own it.
>
> Cool, I own ANWR. *Drill it.
>
> Cool, I own saguaro cactus. *Doze it.

You'd think a slave would have a more liberal view of "property
rights". I think the Bible says it best:
"If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under
his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue
a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money."

May ye reap what ye sow..
-Paul

Michael Press

In article
<32114099-7edf-4404-8888-5a04e90bda2d@z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:

> On Jun 23, 9:50*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 9:28*pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 23, 10:01*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jun 23, 8:24*pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > A few things that have me perplexed:
> >
> > > > > 1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
> > > > > 2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
> > > > > warming from the previous century
> > > > > 3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
> > > > > cool
> > > > > 4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
> > > > > activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
> > > > > levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
> >
> > > > Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't looked at
> > > > the data:
> >
> > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/tem...://anonymous.co...
> >
> > > Very pretty charts. *I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
> > > degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
> > > that it's not surface temps that matter. *Oh, wait... you're trotting
> > > out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
> > > data.
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
> > give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
> > showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
> > degree celsius warmer than a century ago.
> >
> > Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
> > years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.
> >
> > Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
> > cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
> > warming has continued since then.
> >
> > Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
> > perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
> > or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
> > shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
> > say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
> > to solar activity.
> >
> > No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.
>
> Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.

There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?

--
Michael Press

Robert Chung

On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?

Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
unpleasant might be called denial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

Michael Press

In article
<31ab76d3-c31a-4123-926a-f4585e1990a5@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
>
> Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
> unpleasant might be called denial:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

I know you know exactly what I was saying.
Suppose you take into account the statement to which I replied.

--
Michael Press

Robert Chung

On Jun 25, 12:38*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > > *Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> > More fringe:
> > http://law.shu.edu/center_policyres..._legend_final_6....

[snip]

> *Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
> of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a shitload
> of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
> it.

Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?

Robert Chung

On Jun 25, 12:56*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I know you know exactly what I was saying.

Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
"... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
easily have been speaking about you.

Bill C

On Jun 25, 4:04*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 12:38*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > *Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> > > More fringe:
> > >http://law.shu.edu/center_policyres..._legend_final_6....
>
> [snip]
>
> > *Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
> > of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a shitload
> > of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
> > it.
>
> Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
> and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?

What is there to say that an administration in power hasn't joined the
fringe? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. FDR, LBJ, Bush...The scary
part of this is the poll numbers of Republicans who still blindly
support Bush. If your argument is that, that moves them all to the
extremist fringe that's a tough one to argue against too.
Are the people who support, enable, and advocate for the folks doing
extremist/fringe crap guilty of it too. IMO yes. When it stops being
the fringe is open to debate.
The good thing is that it looks like the pendulum is coming back the
other way again.
Bill C

Michael Press

In article
<39c95f7f-5f2a-403b-83a0-e95436bc3261@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 25, 12:56*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I know you know exactly what I was saying.
>
> Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
> Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
> "... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
> easily have been speaking about you.

You are getting further and further from what I said,
and what I replied to, and the meaning.

--
Michael Press

Paul G.

On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <32114099-7edf-4404-8888-5a04e90bd...@z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> *"Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 9:50*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 9:28*pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 10:01*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 23, 8:24*pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > A few things that have me perplexed:
>
> > > > > > 1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
> > > > > > 2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
> > > > > > warming from the previous century
> > > > > > 3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
> > > > > > cool
> > > > > > 4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
> > > > > > activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
> > > > > > levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
>
> > > > > Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't lookedat
> > > > > the data:
>
> > > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/tem...//anonymous..co...
>
> > > > Very pretty charts. *I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
> > > > degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
> > > > that it's not surface temps that matter. *Oh, wait... you're trotting
> > > > out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
> > > > data.
>
> > > Hmmm.
>
> > > You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
> > > give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
> > > showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
> > > degree celsius warmer than a century ago.
>
> > > Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
> > > years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.
>
> > > Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
> > > cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
> > > warming has continued since then.
>
> > > Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
> > > perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
> > > or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
> > > shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
> > > say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
> > > to solar activity.
>
> > > No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.
>
> > Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
>
> There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
>
> --
> Michael Press

Some people claim we never actually landed on the moon. Bush, the
worst president in history has a 28% approval rating, which I guess
means 28% of people polled will approve of damn near anything. So you
can find nut cases to doubt anything and everything. Your comment is
meaningless.

Oh yeah, and the "psycho" thing? You were played... like a
violin. ;-)
-Paul

Paul G.

On Jun 25, 12:09*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
>
> Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
> unpleasant might be called denial:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

I'll have to try that with those fat "estimated quarterly taxes"
envelopes the IRS sends me every year...
-Paul