Al Those Great Scientists Here

[Tom Kunich]

Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
different countries ... and counting!

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On May 14, 1:42 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
> >worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
> >the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
> >universe and earth are respectively around 13 and 4 billion years
> >old, etc etc.
>
> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
> You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you
> possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
> experience? There is no such thing as objective reality.

Nevertheless, if you ride through a large enough pothole,
you will bend your rims, and it does no good to explain
to the pothole that it is merely a construct through which
you approximate the true nature of roadness; the Platonic
ideal of a road, after all, is flat.

Man, I miss the good days when conservatives would beat
up softheaded liberals and strawman postmodernists,
claiming they said everything was subjective, and were
out to overthrow Western Science, etc. That was always a
caricature, although there were a few people who actually
fit it. Now that this particular culture war has turned a corner,
all of a sudden it becomes convenient for wingers
to reject empiricism, so they do.

Ben

P.S. It's a perfectly legitimate position to reject the idea
that a person can have purely objective knowledge of the
natural world. However, to take this a step beyond and
reject empirical knowledge derived from the study of
phenomena outside oneself, is, well ... It's an old chestnut.
Boswell says that Samuel Johnson, on hearing that Bishop
George Berkeley denied the existence of external realities,
kicked a rock and said, "Thus do I refute Berkeley."

http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

[Bret]

On May 16, 5:12*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 16, 12:46*am, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 5:51*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 5:03*pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> > > > > dead. *For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> > > > > alive.
>
> > > > You make it sound as though there is a 50-50 chance that death is
> > > > better. It doesn't work that way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > How does it work? I don't know anyone who has any credible evidence
> > > one way or the other, and even if being dead is simply non-existance
> > > how is that not better in many cases?
> > > *Bill C
>
> > My point was that just because something can't be proven wrong, that
> > doesn't mean that there is a 50-50 chance it is true. That's a common
> > fallacy. I may wake up tomorrow from this bad dream and find that I am
> > the king of the universe. You can't prove that wrong. That doesn't
> > mean it's very likely.
>
> > Bret- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You can't give credible odds based on no evidence Though that seems to
> be pretty typical too.
> *Bill C

Do you have an example?

[William Asher]

Bret wrote:

> You sound like the desperate defense lawyer in an extortion case where
> I was on the jury. The FBI had phone recordings of multiple explicit
> threats and tons of other evidence. The lawyer tried to build a
> defense out of minor inconsistencies elsewhere in the evidence and
> argued "How can you convict when we don't know what really happened"?
> I had the hubris to vote for conviction being the law and order
> liberal that I am.

Oh christ, now you're going to start Greg up on this.

--
Bill Asher

[Bret]

On May 16, 5:42*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> * *That takes the 'strange person who showed up to a party but we eventually found
> out they didn't know anyone' thing to a new level.

It was a pretty informal living arrangement, six of us renting rooms
in a beat up old mansion in Burlington, VT for $100/mo. An interesting
bit of trivia is that when Bernie Sanders was elected Mayor of
Burlington, his victory party was at our house. One of my roommates
had been working hard for Bernie and offered our place for the party
since we had plenty of room. The roommate, also the SO mentioned
earlier, was a member of an anarchists club in Burlington and they had
all been working hard to get a socialist mayor elected. I had
forgotten about the party plans and came home from my job at IBM to
find camera crews from all three local TV stations waiting to get a
shot of Bernie walking through our front door. I went to my room and
missed the whole event and never did meet the man. The next morning,
the front page of the newspaper had a picture of Bernie walking though
our front door. Bernie is now one of two independent US Senators for
those of you wondering who I talking about.

Bret

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On May 16, 12:14 pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It wasn't as bad as I made it sound. They were a nice person off the
> rails. Most of the issues were pretty harmless, finger painting the
> walls in their room, urging the household to purchase a communal goat.
> The issue that led to the confrontation was tearing down the kitchen
> for cleaning and then leaving the job unfinished. The last day, it
> accelerated suddenly. An imaginary crime was reported to the police,
> then they spent some time in the city "smiling at people and trying to
> make them happier", then they attempted suicide. After it was over, I
> learned that they had joined the household uninvited and that the
> person that I thought was their SO had been trying to figure out how
> to get out the situation.
>
> I see your point about hubris, but taken to an extreme it starts to
> look like insanity.

I've known a couple of manic people, and they can be very
engaging at first, gregarious and full of excited talk and
big plans. At first you're going "Well, um, okay ..." and
eventually you realize that they're totally unmoored from
any considerations about practicality. How long it takes
to realize this (a week, two hours, 15 minutes) depends on
how advanced the mania is. One of the manic persons
I knew (only a little) did eventually commit suicide.

I do think, though, that you probably need a bit of this trait
to be a salesman, CEO, visionary, or politician of the charisma
school. Whether you become Edison, Bill Clinton, Newt
Gingrich, Ken Lay or a buyer of communal goats depends
on the degree of mania/enthusiasm and your circumstances.

Ben

[Robert Chung]

On May 15, 1:03 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> > > Samuel Johnson [...] said, "Thus do I refute Berkeley."
>
> > I know a guy who was told he had little chance of getting tenure here.
> > He sought, received, and accepted an offer from that school down the
> > peninsula. He said something very much like Johnson.
>
> Only with what the Times refers to as "an Anglo-Saxon
> epithet," I hope.
> Which school, UCSC, SJSU? Stanford? Going
> from Berkeley to Stanford, some would consider that
> a step down. While there are many junior colleges in
> the US of A, there is only one junior university,
> Leland Stanford Junior University.

UCSC isn't "down the peninsula," it's "over the hill." I don't want to
say anything bad about SJS since they were kind enough to employ me
for a while but I wouldn't call it "down the peninsula" either; I
think I might describe it as "in the armpit of the Bay." Tenure
decisions are odd because they're mostly made at the department level
and, frankly, this guy was a poor fit for his department at Berkeley.
His move to the Junior University improved both departments.

[Bret]

On May 15, 6:44*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <9bc9e54d-ebf0-4b59-bec3-99560fcde...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> *Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 14, 7:04*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1c9c681b-3e1e-497a-88d1-851647c68...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > *Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 14, 2:42*pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> > > > > <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> > > > > >I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
> > > > > >worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
> > > > > >the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
> > > > > >universe and earth are respectively around 13 *and 4 billion years
> > > > > >old, *etc etc.
>
> > > > > I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
> > > > > You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. *How could you
> > > > > possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
> > > > > experience? *There is no such thing as objective reality.
>
> > > > You sound like the desperate defense lawyer in an extortion case where
> > > > I was on the jury. The FBI had phone recordings of multiple explicit
> > > > threats and tons of other evidence. The lawyer tried to build a
> > > > defense out of minor inconsistencies elsewhere in the evidence and
> > > > argued "How can you convict when we don't know what really happened"?
> > > > I had the hubris to vote for conviction being the law and order
> > > > liberal that I am.
>
> > > * *We're going to have to come repossess your official Dirty ****ing Hippie
> > > membership card, Bret.
>
> > Anyone would have convicted this guy. The story would make a great
> > Coen Brothers movie. I'd tell it here but I wouldn't want the guy to
> > google himself some day and then decide to come after me.
>
> > Bret
>
> Just use a pseudonym for him. I suggest "Tony Soprano."

http://longstories123.blogspot.com/

[Howard Kveck]

In article <1c9c681b-3e1e-497a-88d1-851647c682c1@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Bret <bret.wade@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 14, 2:42*pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
> >
> > <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> > >I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
> > >worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
> > >the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
> > >universe and earth are respectively around 13 *and 4 billion years
> > >old, *etc etc.
> >
> > I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
> > You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. *How could you
> > possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
> > experience? *There is no such thing as objective reality.
>
> You sound like the desperate defense lawyer in an extortion case where
> I was on the jury. The FBI had phone recordings of multiple explicit
> threats and tons of other evidence. The lawyer tried to build a
> defense out of minor inconsistencies elsewhere in the evidence and
> argued "How can you convict when we don't know what really happened"?
> I had the hubris to vote for conviction being the law and order
> liberal that I am.

We're going to have to come repossess your official Dirty ****ing Hippie
membership card, Bret.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cikp249oqsiooh02jk0i3p59sf67souno6@4ax.com...
>
> However, to fully appreciate money it's best to have been through a
> period when you didn't have any. My children, who have always had
> everything they want, have no idea how lucky they are and really don't
> appreciate what they have.

Can you imagine what sort of mind allows itself to win tens or hundreds of
millions of dollars and then loses it all within a decade? Every last dime?

[Robert Chung]

On May 15, 10:25 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> P.S. Did you know that the Wikipedia "Ghost Rider"
> entry is the same length as, for example, its
> "Philip Roth" entry? And the Roth entry is half lists.

You insinuating that Philip Roth was a ghost writer?

[Howard Kveck]

In article <05c4eb2d-04ef-46f0-87d0-f9f227d298e6@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
Bret <bret.wade@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 11:50*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bb78e344-0cc3-4681-9e64-134f7271e...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > *Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 8, 9:41*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <482314ac$0$14355$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> > > > *Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > > > > > "reality-based community"---I love it! *When do we move?
> >
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > > > * *I'm betting on the aide in question being Karl Rove.
> >
> > > I think it was Douglas Feith. I do hope we find out some day.
> >
> > * *You know, Feith is also a good choice. But it sounds so Rovian to me -
> > similar to his comment to NPR host Robert Siegel about the then-impending '06
> > elections: "You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your
> > math. I'm entitled to 'the' math."
>
> The more I think about it the more it sounds like someone on a manic
> high. I once had a housemate that was an undiagnosed manic depressive.
> Their behavior became increasingly erratic until they were confronted
> by the household. We were told that we just didn't understand what it
> was like to be perfect. Things went downhill from there. Police,
> hospital, lithium, bus ticket home to live with parents. Our landlord
> was manic depressive himself and totally understood.

Wow, what an unpleasant living situation. I hope things got better for this
person. Anyway, while I agree that a person on a manic high could say the sort of
thing we're talking about, I don't really think that's the case here as it nicely
fits into a pattern of high hubris level comments and actions by Bush admin. people,
many of which have later been proven to be incredibly poorly thought out. Rove's
comment above is a good example.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Paul G.]

On May 14, 1:42 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
> >worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
> >the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
> >universe and earth are respectively around 13 and 4 billion years
> >old, etc etc.
>
> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
> You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you
> possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
> experience? There is no such thing as objective reality.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with
bull****".
-Paul

[Bret]

On May 16, 7:42*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <14edf597-67dd-4d9c-b008-b6ac14c4f...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> *Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 16, 5:42*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > > * *That takes the 'strange person who showed up to a party but we
> > > eventually found
> > > out they didn't know anyone' thing to a new level.
>
> > It was a pretty informal living arrangement, six of us renting rooms
> > in a beat up old mansion in Burlington, VT for $100/mo. An interesting
> > bit of trivia is that when Bernie Sanders was elected Mayor of
> > Burlington, his victory party was at our house. One of my roommates
> > had been working hard for Bernie and offered our place for the party
> > since we had plenty of room. The roommate, also the SO mentioned
> > earlier, was a member of an anarchists club in Burlington and they had
> > all been working hard to get a socialist mayor elected. I had
> > forgotten about the party plans and came home from my job at IBM to
> > find camera crews from all three local TV stations waiting to get a
> > shot of Bernie walking through our front door. I went to my room and
> > missed the whole event and never did meet the man. The next morning,
> > the front page of the newspaper had a picture of Bernie walking though
> > our front door. Bernie is now one of two independent US Senators for
> > those of you wondering who I talking about.
>
> * *That's a good story. By the way, Sanders is the only real independent Senator.
> Lieberman is independent in name only. "Bipartisan," my ass... If you constantly vote
> with and to enable the policies of the Republicans, you're not bipartisan, you're a
> Republican. He isn't honest enough to admit it.

It would have been a great story if I hadn't forgotten to mention that
my anarchist roommate claimed to have once tapped Caroline Kennedy.

Bret

[Donald Munro]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions. You
> assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you possibly know
> this in a way that is separate from your subjective experience? There is
> no such thing as objective reality.

Greg will tell you I passed my Turing test.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<fb2cbea7-6319-45c7-a6f6-da9358fdeff0@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 9:37 am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 16, 8:21 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Whether you become Edison, Bill Clinton, Newt
> > > Gingrich, Ken Lay or a buyer of communal goats depends
> > > on the degree of mania/enthusiasm and your circumstances.
> >
> > What if you end up buying a garage-full of bikes?
>
> Now that's funny! It's a curse to be able to glance at 30 bicycles
> at the recycling center and immediately spot the one that's worth
> something... Thank god for Craigslist.
> -Paul

You think it's a curse...I just re-revised my last bike (the stupid
gearhub TT thing) for no reason other than to amuse my club-mates.

BTW, all four of the bikes from my Craigslist ad sold.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Bill C]

On May 15, 5:03*pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> > dead. *For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> > alive.
>
> You make it sound as though there is a 50-50 chance that death is
> better. It doesn't work that way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How does it work? I don't know anyone who has any credible evidence
one way or the other, and even if being dead is simply non-existance
how is that not better in many cases?
Bill C

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<3f2a74ed-01a9-4b74-bd20-80daf823cc9d@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

> On May 15, 1:48 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
> > <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> > >On May 15, 8:17 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living
> > >can only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. If one ceases to
> > >exist, so does the other. The question is, because they both need the
> > >other to exist, does it really matter which one you are?
> >
> > >It matters to me.
> >
> > I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> > dead. For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> > alive.
>
> To get back on the topic of global warming, this argument
> is a lot like the "Maybe global warming is happening, but
> we need to study it for another 50 years before deciding
> whether to do anything about it" argument.
>
> Ben
> Some studies claim that rich people aren't any happier
> than poor people. If you haven't been both rich and poor,
> how can you know which one is better?
>
> On the other hand, Mae West said "I've been rich and
> I've been poor, and rich is better." So if you are willing
> to take on faith the testimony of an expert, there you go.
> Now all we need is the testimony of someone who's been
> alive and dead. Does anyone have Jesus's cell number?

The numbers I'm aware of speak of a rapidly diminishing marginal value
of money.

Which is to say, the first $50k/a is the best.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Donald Munro]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be glad to settle for
> oblivion.

Ah yes, Sisyphus again. Better than an eternity arguing with a bot.

[Bill C]

On May 16, 12:46*am, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 5:51*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 5:03*pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> > > > dead. *For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> > > > alive.
>
> > > You make it sound as though there is a 50-50 chance that death is
> > > better. It doesn't work that way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > How does it work? I don't know anyone who has any credible evidence
> > one way or the other, and even if being dead is simply non-existance
> > how is that not better in many cases?
> > *Bill C
>
> My point was that just because something can't be proven wrong, that
> doesn't mean that there is a 50-50 chance it is true. That's a common
> fallacy. I may wake up tomorrow from this bad dream and find that I am
> the king of the universe. You can't prove that wrong. That doesn't
> mean it's very likely.
>
> Bret- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You can't give credible odds based on no evidence Though that seems to
be pretty typical too.
Bill C

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 15, 10:25*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> This guy?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Rider_(Johnny_Blaze)http://www..marvel.com/universe/Ghost_Rider_(John_Blaze)
>
> I wouldn't have voted to convict him, myself.
> It's not because I'm a bleeding heart liberal. *It's
> because I'm a bleeding heart liberal _and_ a
> coward who's scared of people with flaming skulls
> for heads.

Don't you mean fascist? You might as well, you know.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <9c81a35f-6996-4da0-8ae9-800f87e11739@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Bret <bret.wade@gmail.com> wrote:

> It wasn't as bad as I made it sound. They were a nice person off the
> rails. Most of the issues were pretty harmless, finger painting the
> walls in their room, urging the household to purchase a communal goat.

Purchasing a communal goat would be fine, as long as it was understood that the
goat would end up on a pit barbecue one day.

> The issue that led to the confrontation was tearing down the kitchen
> for cleaning and then leaving the job unfinished.

A friend of mine had a boyfriend who tore the kitchen up one weekend to rebuild it
and then didn't feel like finishing the job. It certainly makes life a lot more
expensive not having a kitchen. In the long run, that was a fairly mild bit of ****
on his part.

> The last day, it
> accelerated suddenly. An imaginary crime was reported to the police,
> then they spent some time in the city "smiling at people and trying to
> make them happier", then they attempted suicide. After it was over, I
> learned that they had joined the household uninvited and that the
> person that I thought was their SO had been trying to figure out how
> to get out the situation.

That takes the 'strange person who showed up to a party but we eventually found
out they didn't know anyone' thing to a new level.

> I see your point about hubris, but taken to an extreme it starts to
> look like insanity.

Indeed.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<c90aa9f3-5469-4e60-9b4a-d64d1eba8242@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

> On May 15, 5:48*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The numbers I'm aware of speak of a rapidly diminishing marginal value
> > of money.
>
>
> Send your marginally valued money to me.

I'm pretty sure your marginal money could beat up my marginal money.

I'm not proud of that fact,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On May 16, 12:14 pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It wasn't as bad as I made it sound. They were a nice person off the
> rails. Most of the issues were pretty harmless, finger painting the
> walls in their room, urging the household to purchase a communal goat.
> The issue that led to the confrontation was tearing down the kitchen
> for cleaning and then leaving the job unfinished. The last day, it
> accelerated suddenly. An imaginary crime was reported to the police,
> then they spent some time in the city "smiling at people and trying to
> make them happier", then they attempted suicide. After it was over, I
> learned that they had joined the household uninvited and that the
> person that I thought was their SO had been trying to figure out how
> to get out the situation.
>
> I see your point about hubris, but taken to an extreme it starts to
> look like insanity.

I've known a couple of manic people, and they can be very
engaging at first, gregarious and full of excited talk and
big plans. At first you're going "Well, um, okay ..." and
eventually you realize that they're totally unmoored from
any considerations about practicality. How long it takes
to realize this (a week, two hours, 15 minutes) depends on
how advanced the mania is. One of the manic persons
I knew (only a little) did eventually commit suicide.

I do think, though, that you probably need a bit of this trait
to be a salesman, CEO, visionary, or politician of the charisma
school. Whether you become Edison, Bill Clinton, Newt
Gingrich, Ken Lay or a buyer of communal goats depends
on the degree of mania/enthusiasm and your circumstances.

Ben

[Bret]

On May 15, 2:48*pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >On May 15, 8:17 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> In much the same way, the idea of conservative can only exist in
> >> contrast to the idea of liberal. *If one ceases to exist, so does the
> >> other. *The question is, because they both need the other to exist,
> >> does it really matter which one you are?
>
> >To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living
> >can only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. *If one ceases to
> >exist, so does the other. *The question is, because they both need the
> >other to exist, does it really matter which one you are?
>
> >It matters to me.
>
> I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> dead. *For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> alive.

You make it sound as though there is a 50-50 chance that death is
better. It doesn't work that way.

[Robert Chung]

On May 15, 7:42 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> >> Can you imagine what sort of mind allows itself to win tens or hundreds
> >> of millions of dollars and then loses it all within a decade?
>
> > The kind of mind who'd think giving up golf would show solidarity with
> > grieving families?
>
> How about the kind who would purposely misrepresent what was happening
> purely to make a political point?

Oh, that's easy. Most of us call that kind of person "Kunich."

[Michael Press]

In article <cikp249oqsiooh02jk0i3p59sf67souno6@4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
> >On the other hand, Mae West said "I've been rich and
> >I've been poor, and rich is better."
>
> I grew up in a poor family and, by some definitions, I could now be
> classified as rich, or at worst upper middle class and I can say
> without doubt that it's better to have money.
>
> However, to fully appreciate money it's best to have been through a
> period when you didn't have any. My children, who have always had
> everything they want, have no idea how lucky they are and really don't
> appreciate what they have.

But they could. I grew up with a warm place to sleep,
and regular good meals. My folks spoke occasionally
of their childhood circumstances. I also considered
that there really were people everywhere whose
circumstances were very difficult. I would have liked
a lot more money, but that was secondary. A youngster
can have a ground zero appreciation for his good fortune.

--
Michael Press

[dave a]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by
> 532 individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> different countries ... and counting!

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

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that
the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was
warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what
those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century
periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer
than in the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from
ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.

your friend in science
/dave a

[Robert Chung]

On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> different countries ... and counting!

NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

[Tom Kunich]

"dave a" <blkcatREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvr4q9029s3@news1.newsguy.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
>> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
>> different countries ... and counting!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
>
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the
> "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer
> than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those
> "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods
> when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in
> the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice
> cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
> actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
> Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.

So NOAA trumps 532 scientists. Who knew?

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On May 6, 9:31*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "dave a" <blkcatREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fvr4q9029s3@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> >> different countries ... and counting!
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
>
> > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the
> > "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer
> > than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those
> > "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods
> > when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in
> > the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice
> > cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
> > actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
> > Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.
>
> So NOAA trumps 532 scientists. Who knew?

Kun-Kun,

Your original post doesn't sound like something
a person would just write and post to Usenet. In fact,
a simple Google reveals that you cut-and-pasted it
from http://www.co2science.org/ , which is a step up
from stealing your material from couplescompany.com,
though it's just a slickly designed climate
disinformation website. Most people agree there was
a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.

Still, not quoting and naming your sources is plagiarism
by most university standards. I'm afraid I'm going to
have to give you zero credit for your term paper and
you're going to fail the class. But I don't think this
case rises to the level of reporting as an honor code
violation, so the Dean and I have agreed that you
can stay enrolled for the fall semester. I'm going to
recommend that you try "Rocks for Jocks" rather than
taking Professor Asher's earth sciences class for
your distribution requirement, though.

Ben

[Howard Kveck]

In article <d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

> On May 6, 9:31*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "dave a" <blkcatREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:fvr4q9029s3@news1.newsguy.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> > >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> > >> different countries ... and counting!
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
> >
> > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the
> > > "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer
> > > than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those
> > > "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods
> > > when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in
> > > the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice
> > > cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
> > > actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
> > > Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.
> >
> > So NOAA trumps 532 scientists. Who knew?
>
> Kun-Kun,
>
> Your original post doesn't sound like something
> a person would just write and post to Usenet. In fact,
> a simple Google reveals that you cut-and-pasted it
> from http://www.co2science.org/ , which is a step up
> from stealing your material from couplescompany.com,
> though it's just a slickly designed climate
> disinformation website. Most people agree there was
> a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
> means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.
>
> Still, not quoting and naming your sources is plagiarism
> by most university standards. I'm afraid I'm going to
> have to give you zero credit for your term paper and
> you're going to fail the class. But I don't think this
> case rises to the level of reporting as an honor code
> violation, so the Dean and I have agreed that you
> can stay enrolled for the fall semester. I'm going to
> recommend that you try "Rocks for Jocks" rather than
> taking Professor Asher's earth sciences class for
> your distribution requirement, though.

What? No Double Secret Probation?!?!?! I'm shocked at how lax this institution has
become.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Donald Munro]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> I'm going to recommend that you try "Rocks for Jocks"
> rather than taking Professor Asher's earth sciences class for your
> distribution requirement, though.

No doubt Professor Asher will be glad to hear he won't be pushing
any more rocks up a mountain in the underworld.

[Tom Kunich]

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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 it's all right with me if you want to pretend to be knowledgeable about
something you know nothing about.

[John Everett]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:49:23 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>On May 6, 9:31*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "dave a" <blkcatREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fvr4q9029s3@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
>> >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
>> >> different countries ... and counting!
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
>>
>> > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the
>> > "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer
>> > than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those
>> > "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods
>> > when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in
>> > the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice
>> > cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
>> > actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
>> > Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.
>>
>> So NOAA trumps 532 scientists. Who knew?
>
>Kun-Kun,
>
>Your original post doesn't sound like something
>a person would just write and post to Usenet. In fact,
>a simple Google reveals that you cut-and-pasted it
>from http://www.co2science.org/ , which is a step up
>from stealing your material from couplescompany.com,
>though it's just a slickly designed climate
>disinformation website. Most people agree there was
>a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
>means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.

I just looked at the web site cited above and it's clearly right out
of the Rush Limbaugh School of Climate Science.


--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

[William Asher]

Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in
news:YOURhoward-9D349A.23513706052008@newsgroups.comcast.net:

>
> What? No Double Secret Probation?!?!?! I'm shocked at how lax this
> institution has become.
>

I'm sitting here wondering who the **** Al is.

--
Bill Asher

p.s. If anyone gives a crap, the IPCC AR4, Chap. 6 has a nice discussion
of the "MWP" that can be found on p 468:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

The key point, as Ben mentioned, was the best data indicate it was a) not
as warm on average as we are observing today and b) not a synchronous
global warming like we are observing today.

Figure 6.10 on p 467 is a very good summary of hemispheric temperature
reconstructions for the last two millenia.

[William Asher]

Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in news:48215cc2$0$25773
$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:

>
> No doubt Professor Asher will be glad to hear he won't be pushing
> any more rocks up a mountain in the underworld.
>

That stuff is for Sisyphuses anyway.

--
Bill Asher

[John Everett]

On 7 May 2008 07:52:52 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in
>news:YOURhoward-9D349A.23513706052008@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
>>
>> What? No Double Secret Probation?!?!?! I'm shocked at how lax this
>> institution has become.
>>
>
>I'm sitting here wondering who the **** Al is.

Gore of course!

--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

[Paul G.]

On May 7, 12:52 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote innews:YOURhoward-9D349A.23513706052008@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
>
>
> > What? No Double Secret Probation?!?!?! I'm shocked at how lax this
> > institution has become.
>
> I'm sitting here wondering who the **** Al is.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
>
> p.s. If anyone gives a crap, the IPCC AR4, Chap. 6 has a nice discussion
> of the "MWP" that can be found on p 468:
>
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
>
> The key point, as Ben mentioned, was the best data indicate it was a) not
> as warm on average as we are observing today and b) not a synchronous
> global warming like we are observing today.
>
> Figure 6.10 on p 467 is a very good summary of hemispheric temperature
> reconstructions for the last two millenia.

Uh... there is a GLARING error there- how can it be true that "It is
very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379
ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last
650 kyr" when according to right wing biblical experts the earth is
only 6000 years old? See how easy that was? No need to go to the
trouble and expense of fooling around with core samples. If you need
any more help with scientific facts me and Kuntitch will be happy to
help. This global warming nonsense is as absurd as the idea that
Kuntitch evolved from primitive simians. If anything, primitive
simians evolved from Kuntitch.
-Paul

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

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.

Is there a list to sign for "scientists unconcerned about AGW?"

How about a list for "scientists concerned about retards with
political power?"

"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

"The great differences between the characteristic methods of the
physical sciences and those of the social sciences explain why the
natural scientist who turns to the work of the professional students
of social phenomena so often feels that he has got among a company of
people who habitually commit all the mortal sins which he is most
careful to avoid, and that a science of society conforming to his
standards does not yet exist." -- Hayek, _The Counter-Revolution of
Science, Studies on the Abuse of Reason_

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> news:d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>>
>> 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 it's all right with me if you want to pretend to be knowledgeable
> about something you know nothing about.
>
>

Here's how typical climate skeptics stack up against real climate
physicists in terms of their h-indeces:

The question, if you calculate the h-index for a group of well-known, well-
funded, and well-fed from the look of them climate skeptics and compared
that to the h-index for a group of similar climate scientists, would there
be any significant difference? (Sidebar: the h-index is one measure of a
scientist's productivity over his/her career and tracks the impact their
publications have in terms of citations. There is a wikipedia entry on the
h-index, googling h-index will turn it up. It is also discussed on the ISI
website.) So, I took the staff of WorldClimateReport.com (Michaels,
Balling, Davies, Knappenberger (all well-known skeptics)) and compared
their h-indeces to the staff of RealClimate.org (Schmidt, Mann, Ammann,
Archer, Benestad, BRadley, Connolley, Rahmstorf, Steig, deGaridel-Thoron
(maybe not so well-known climate physicists and chemists)). One issue with
this approach is that the h-index for a scientist will rise over time.
This puts younger scientists at a disadvantage to older scientists so I
also computed the average h-index for each divided by the years since Ph.D.
(the result being the average rise in h-index over time (ISI claims for
physicists that a value of 1 for this ratio signifies normal scientific
productivity (the ratio is higher for biomedical sciences, somewhat lower
for other sciences, but 1 is a good ballpark number)). Here are the
results (all h-indeces compiled using ISI's Web of Science):

WorldClimateReport (Skeptics)
Name....................h-index....PhD Yr...........h-index/(yrs since PhD)
P.J.Michaels.............11........1979........... ...0.38
R.C.Balling Jr...........19........1979..............0.66
P.C.Knappenberger.........9........1992........... ...0.56
R.E.Davies...............13........1979........... ...0.65

Average...................13...................... ...0.56


RealClimate.org (Climate scientists)
Name..............h-index.........PhD Yr..............h-index/yrssincePhD
Schmidt............18.............1996............ ..1.5
Mann...............29.............1998............ ..2.9
Ammann.............17.............2002............ ..2.8
Archer.............24.............1990............ ..1.3
Benestad...........8..............1997............ ..0.73
Bradley............31.............1974............ ..0.91
Connolley..........14.............1996............ ..1.2
deGaridel-Thoron...5..............2002..............0.83
Rahmstorf..........22.............1990............ ..1.2
Steig..............24.............1995............ ..1.85

Average............18............................. ..1.53


So it's a landslide to RealClimate.org in terms of scientific productivity.
Their average h-index normalized over their careers is a factor of three
greater than the skeptics. This is why the skeptics are simply getting
savaged scientifically. They just aren't good scientists, they're just
media whores who do just enough science to maintain credibility.

CO2Science is run by the Idso family. Craig Idso has an h-index of 5 and a
yearly average of 0.5. Keith Idso has an h-index of 4 and a yearly average
of 0.16. Sherwood Idso (daddy) has an h-index of 43 for an average of
1.05 (I guess we know who weilds the big stick in that clan eh?), so he is
comparable to the guys at realclimate.org, but that is a rare exception
among skeptics. Fred Seitz, who you cite as an authority, has an h-index
of 14 but has a career spanning over 50 years so his average is very low
(you can't argue that he did most of his work early either since most of
his publications are in the back half of his career (when he became a
climate skeptic)).

It's not that people like Ben or I are pretending to be knowledgable, it's
that the skeptics are pretending to be knowledgable. Why people like you
and Jack can't figure out that you are being used as inflatable sheep with
life-like sucking mouth action is something I cannot figure out.

--
Bill Asher

[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:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
>> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
>> different countries ... and counting!
>
> NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published
>> by 532 individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions
>> in 38 different countries ... and counting!
>
> NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

Delegates or popular votes?

[Tom Kunich]

"John Everett" <jeverett3@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote in message
news:4he324dqc5l0g05tm4af1q2ml1e2njvtsa@4ax.com...
>
> I just looked at the web site cited above and it's clearly right out
> of the Rush Limbaugh School of Climate Science.

I like your science:

"we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of
significant climate change from other than natural causes." Frederick Seitz
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, Past President, National Academy
of Sciences, Past President, American Physical Society, Chairman, Science
and Environmental Policy Project

The fact is that there are hundreds of scientists that have signed onto the
Kyoto Protocols and backed the IPCC who haven't the slightest training nor
education in the questions at hand. And of course those same sort of
uneducated dolts such as our own Benny here are perfectly willing to support
politicians who promise policies which would essentially cause mass societal
destruction and starvation of the third world.

But just go right ahead and believe people screaming that you have to throw
all of your money at them and then live like a pauper. Seems like your kind
of thinking.

[RicodJour]

On May 7, 10:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> >> different countries ... and counting!
>
> > NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>
> >http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about...
>
> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?

Let's see. You plagiarize a portion of a reactionary site's article
that apparently uses a bot to collect climate scientists names at
random and stick them on a list, which is beyond stupid for them and a
ME TOO! I'M WITH STUPID! for you. That about sum it up?

I'm getting fed up waiting for the Kun-bot upgrade. It's long
overdue. I'm afraid that the Alzheimer's organizations are going to
have the current one removed for being demeaning to real people with
real memory problems. Is there an open source Kun-bot project in the
works? Please let me know where to PayPal my three dollars.

R

[Robert Chung]

On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> >> different countries ... and counting!
>
> > NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>
> >http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about...
>
> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?

Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable
beginning.

[dustoyevsky@mac.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)!

Where was it you got your engineering degree from, again? What year?
TIA! --D-y

[Donald Munro]

RicodJour wrote:
> I'm getting fed up waiting for the Kun-bot upgrade. It's long overdue.
> I'm afraid that the Alzheimer's organizations are going to have the
> current one removed for being demeaning to real people with real memory
> problems. Is there an open source Kun-bot project in the works? Please
> let me know where to PayPal my three dollars.

The open source version is going to be embedded into a
powermeter and programmed to attack Iran when it takes
a natural break.

[Donald Munro]

Paul G. wrote:
> If anything, primitive simians evolved from Kuntitch.

Degenerative Genetic Algorithms (DGA) is a trademark of SchwartzSoft.

[William Asher]

Paul G. wrote:

> Uh... there is a GLARING error there- how can it be true that "It is
> very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379
> ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last
> 650 kyr" when according to right wing biblical experts the earth is
> only 6000 years old? See how easy that was? No need to go to the
> trouble and expense of fooling around with core samples. If you need
> any more help with scientific facts me and Kuntitch will be happy to
> help. This global warming nonsense is as absurd as the idea that
> Kuntitch evolved from primitive simians. If anything, primitive
> simians evolved from Kuntitch.
> -Paul

Right. I keep forgetting the planet was created to make us think it was
obeying laws of physics to test our faith in god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUW1SGF7bR8

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Robert Chung wrote:

> On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>
>> > On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published
>> >> by 532 individual scientists from 325 separate research
>> >> institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting!
>>
>> > NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>>
>> >http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about
>> >...
>>
>> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?
>
> Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
> Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable
> beginning.
>

Not according to Schwartz. It's more like donating money to the EDF, which
only guarantees you'll be asked to donate more money to the EDF.

--
Bill Asher

[Tom Kunich]

"Robert Chung" <rechung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a83c96d5-a487-4f8a-a0b7-4b4f3d06d4e9@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?
>
> Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.

Yet you don't seem to be able to demonstrate that you do anything at all.

Let's put together the sort of question which is what you really need to
answer -

How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially destroy or
murder in order to get your way?

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 7, 8:47*am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> > Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?
>
> Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
> Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable
> beginning.

If it cuts into your afternoon training rides, I'd say you have
misplaced priorities.

[Donald Munro]

In another thread Tom Kunich wrote:
> Psst - MOST "climate scientists" deny "global warming".

Robert Chung wrote:
> Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
> Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable beginning.

I think you may have bitten off more than you can chew. Although the
voyeur in Schwartz might enjoy your attempts.

[Tom Kunich]

<dustoyevsky@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?

> Where was it you got your engineering degree from, again? What year?

USAF 1963, why?

[Phil Holman]

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A976A88BD82AFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>> news:d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>>
>>> 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 it's all right with me if you want to pretend to be knowledgeable
>> about something you know nothing about.
>>
>>
>
> Here's how typical climate skeptics stack up against real climate
> physicists in terms of their h-indeces:
>
> The question, if you calculate the h-index for a group of well-known,
> well-
> funded, and well-fed from the look of them climate skeptics and
> compared
> that to the h-index for a group of similar climate scientists, would
> there
> be any significant difference? (Sidebar: the h-index is one measure
> of a
> scientist's productivity over his/her career and tracks the impact
> their
> publications have in terms of citations. There is a wikipedia entry
> on the
> h-index, googling h-index will turn it up. It is also discussed on
> the ISI
> website.) So, I took the staff of WorldClimateReport.com (Michaels,
> Balling, Davies, Knappenberger (all well-known skeptics)) and compared
> their h-indeces to the staff of RealClimate.org (Schmidt, Mann,
> Ammann,
> Archer, Benestad, BRadley, Connolley, Rahmstorf, Steig,
> deGaridel-Thoron
> (maybe not so well-known climate physicists and chemists)). One issue
> with
> this approach is that the h-index for a scientist will rise over time.
> This puts younger scientists at a disadvantage to older scientists so
> I
> also computed the average h-index for each divided by the years since
> Ph.D.
> (the result being the average rise in h-index over time (ISI claims
> for
> physicists that a value of 1 for this ratio signifies normal
> scientific
> productivity (the ratio is higher for biomedical sciences, somewhat
> lower
> for other sciences, but 1 is a good ballpark number)). Here are the
> results (all h-indeces compiled using ISI's Web of Science):
>
> WorldClimateReport (Skeptics)
> Name....................h-index....PhD Yr...........h-index/(yrs since
> PhD)
> P.J.Michaels.............11........1979........... ...0.38
> R.C.Balling Jr...........19........1979..............0.66
> P.C.Knappenberger.........9........1992........... ...0.56
> R.E.Davies...............13........1979........... ...0.65
>
> Average...................13...................... ...0.56
>
>
> RealClimate.org (Climate scientists)
> Name..............h-index.........PhD
> Yr..............h-index/yrssincePhD
> Schmidt............18.............1996............ ..1.5
> Mann...............29.............1998............ ..2.9
> Ammann.............17.............2002............ ..2.8
> Archer.............24.............1990............ ..1.3
> Benestad...........8..............1997............ ..0.73
> Bradley............31.............1974............ ..0.91
> Connolley..........14.............1996............ ..1.2
> deGaridel-Thoron...5..............2002..............0.83
> Rahmstorf..........22.............1990............ ..1.2
> Steig..............24.............1995............ ..1.85
>
> Average............18............................. ..1.53
>
>
> So it's a landslide to RealClimate.org in terms of scientific
> productivity.
> Their average h-index normalized over their careers is a factor of
> three
> greater than the skeptics. This is why the skeptics are simply
> getting
> savaged scientifically. They just aren't good scientists, they're
> just
> media whores who do just enough science to maintain credibility.
>

Hmm, to generalize that logic; would it be appropriate to always side
with the so-called heavy hitters? Not to dispute the fact that the
majority of heavy hitters side with realclimate but ..............well,
explain your sampling technique again.

Phil H

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:Xns9A976B99F6E6BFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> "Robert Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com.
>>> ..
>>>
>>>> On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>>> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published
>>>>> by 532 individual scientists from 325 separate research
>>>>> institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting!
>>>
>>>> NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>>>
>>>> http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?
>>
>> Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
>> Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable
>> beginning.
>>
>
> Not according to Schwartz. It's more like donating money to the EDF,
> which only guarantees you'll be asked to donate more money to the EDF.

EDF - Électricité de France ???

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

William Asher wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> "Robert Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com.
>>> ..
>>>
>>>> On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>>> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published
>>>>> by 532 individual scientists from 325 separate research
>>>>> institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting!
>>>> NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>>>> http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about
>>>> ...
>>> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?
>> Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
>> Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable
>> beginning.
>>
>
> Not according to Schwartz. It's more like donating money to the EDF, which
> only guarantees you'll be asked to donate more money to the EDF.
>


He's right. But they all are.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[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

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
> destroy or murder in order to get your way?
>
>

Can we also tap their women?

--
Bill Asher

[Robert Chung]

On May 7, 11:09 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
> > destroy or murder in order to get your way?
>
> Can we also tap their women?

One of my governor's best lines:

Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the
wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
the lamentations of the women.

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
>> destroy or murder in order to get your way?

I didn't realize climate scientists received CIA training.

William Asher wrote:
> Can we also tap their women?

Kunich thinks we're all gay so he isn't worried about that (although
he might be worried if he knew you to be a Jedi knight dabbling in the
back side of the Force).

[William Asher]

Sandy wrote:

> EDF - Électricité de France ???

Environmental Defense Fund.

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Robert Chung wrote:

> On May 7, 11:09 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> > How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
>> > destroy or murder in order to get your way?
>>
>> Can we also tap their women?
>
> One of my governor's best lines:
>
> Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
> Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the
> wind in your hair.
> Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
> Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
> the lamentations of the women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Donald Munro wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
>>> destroy or murder in order to get your way?
>
> I didn't realize climate scientists received CIA training.

The way to think about it is that if you fail the climate scientist
subterfuge, intrigue, and mayhem aptitude test the CIA will take you. Once
you enroll in climate scientist training, you either graduate, or are never
heard from again. Sort of like assassin school in Ankh-Morpork, only
without the training in culture and dancing.

> William Asher wrote:
>> Can we also tap their women?
>
> Kunich thinks we're all gay so he isn't worried about that (although
> he might be worried if he knew you to be a Jedi knight dabbling in the
> back side of the Force).

It kind of makes you wonder what a Jedi page thinks of their chosen
profession as their master dabbles in the back side with force. Or not.

--
Bill Asher

[Robert Chung]

On May 7, 11:33 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > One of my governor's best lines:
>
> > Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
> > Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the
> > wind in your hair.
> > Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
> > Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
> > the lamentations of the women.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI

Ah. Thanks. I stand corrected:
"...to hear the lamentation of de vimmen."

[Paul G.]

On May 7, 11:33 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > On May 7, 11:09 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >> > How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
> >> > destroy or murder in order to get your way?
>
> >> Can we also tap their women?
>
> > One of my governor's best lines:
>
> > Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
> > Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the
> > wind in your hair.
> > Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
> > Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
> > the lamentations of the women.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI
>
> --
> Bill Asher

This is why I'm a liberal. That doesn't sound all that fun to me. No,
for me the best in life is a long bike ride on a cold day, followed by
drinking a cold Dos Equis beer while taking a hot shower, a "nap",
followed by a nap, maybe another "nap", etc... Lamentations are not
what I want to hear from my women. That would Interfere with my
napping, not to mention my "napping".
-Paul

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:Xns9A9775BC23546FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> EDF - Électricité de France ???
>
> Environmental Defense Fund.

Subsidiary?

[William Asher]

Robert Chung wrote:

> On May 7, 11:33 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > One of my governor's best lines:
>>
>> > Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
>> > Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the
>> > wind in your hair.
>> > Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
>> > Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
>> > the lamentations of the women.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI
>
> Ah. Thanks. I stand corrected:
> "...to hear the lamentation of de vimmen."
>

It is a cinema classic, regardless of the trivial details. Right up there
with:

Terminator: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
Clerk: Hey, just what you see pal.

--
Bill Asher

[Paul G.]

On May 7, 11:50 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > On May 7, 11:33 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > One of my governor's best lines:
>
> >> > Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
> >> > Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the
> >> > wind in your hair.
> >> > Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
> >> > Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
> >> > the lamentations of the women.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI
>
> > Ah. Thanks. I stand corrected:
> > "...to hear the lamentation of de vimmen."
>
> It is a cinema classic, regardless of the trivial details. Right up there
> with:
>
> Terminator: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
> Clerk: Hey, just what you see pal.
>
> --
> Bill Asher

A 40 watt pulse rifle??! That's ridiculous. I use a 100 watt pulse
rifle just to shoot starlings in my cherry trees. Who writes this
crap?
-Paul

[Tom Kunich]

"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.

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.

[William Asher]

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.

--
Bill Asher

[Fred Fredburger]

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.
>
> Is there a list to sign for "scientists unconcerned about AGW?"
>
> How about a list for "scientists concerned about retards with
> political power?"
>

There appear to be only 2 prevalent views on this topic:

1. Global warming is occurring AND it'll be disastrous AND it's caused
by humans AND it's caused by CO2 from burning fossil fuels AND the
government ought to do something.

2. Global warming is not occurring AND it'll be good for some of us AND
humans cause no harm to the environment AND humans aren't increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere AND government ought to butt out.

Retards without political power are annoying too.

[Fred Fredburger]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> "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

Saves the trouble of having to convince "retards".

[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?

[William Asher]

Paul G. wrote:

> On May 7, 11:50 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>> > On May 7, 11:33 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > One of my governor's best lines:
>>
>> >> > Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in
>> >> > life? Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your
>> >> > wrist, and the wind in your hair.
>> >> > Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
>> >> > Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to
>> >> > hear the lamentations of the women.
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI
>>
>> > Ah. Thanks. I stand corrected:
>> > "...to hear the lamentation of de vimmen."
>>
>> It is a cinema classic, regardless of the trivial details. Right up
>> there with:
>>
>> Terminator: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
>> Clerk: Hey, just what you see pal.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Asher
>
> A 40 watt pulse rifle??! That's ridiculous. I use a 100 watt pulse
> rifle just to shoot starlings in my cherry trees. Who writes this
> crap?
> -Paul

You're a liberal, nobody expects you to know anything about weaponry so
it's not surprising you are completely overgunned. Anyway, those were
purple martins, not starlings. Nice going.

--
Bill Asher

[Paul G.]

On May 7, 1:28 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Well said. I've been musing- when did "conservative" become synonymous
with "wasteful" and "reckless"? They used to be antonyms. Not any
more...
-Paul

[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.

[Jack Hollis]

On 7 May 2008 20:28:48 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

Why think of them as bad. When my son asked me what would happen if
the sea level rises 100 feet, I tell him that we wont have to drive as
far to go to the beach.

[Jack Hollis]

On 7 May 2008 20:28:48 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

Why think of them as bad. When my son asked me what would happen if
the sea level rises 100 feet, I tell him that we wont have to drive as
far to go to the beach.

[Donald Munro]

Paul G. wrote:
>> A 40 watt pulse rifle??! That's ridiculous. I use a 100 watt pulse
>> rifle just to shoot starlings in my cherry trees. Who writes this crap?
>> -Paul

William Asher wrote:
> You're a liberal, nobody expects you to know anything about weaponry so
> it's not surprising you are completely overgunned. Anyway, those were
> purple martins, not starlings. Nice going.

There's another liberal around here who'd like to borrow the pulse rifle
to shoot some pesky peace doves.

[Paul G.]

On May 7, 1:37 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > On May 7, 11:50 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Robert Chung wrote:
> >> > On May 7, 11:33 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > One of my governor's best lines:
>
> >> >> > Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in
> >> >> > life? Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your
> >> >> > wrist, and the wind in your hair.
> >> >> > Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
> >> >> > Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to
> >> >> > hear the lamentations of the women.
>
> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI
>
> >> > Ah. Thanks. I stand corrected:
> >> > "...to hear the lamentation of de vimmen."
>
> >> It is a cinema classic, regardless of the trivial details. Right up
> >> there with:
>
> >> Terminator: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
> >> Clerk: Hey, just what you see pal.
>
> >> --
> >> Bill Asher
>
> > A 40 watt pulse rifle??! That's ridiculous. I use a 100 watt pulse
> > rifle just to shoot starlings in my cherry trees. Who writes this
> > crap?
> > -Paul
>
> You're a liberal, nobody expects you to know anything about weaponry so
> it's not surprising you are completely overgunned. Anyway, those were
> purple martins, not starlings. Nice going.
>
> --
> Bill Asher

Over gunned... no way! Look at it like this: we have a president
who's the equivalent of a 25 watt bulb. Four times that is just
enough to take out a starling without upsetting the neighbors.
-Paul

[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).

[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.

[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.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On May 7, 5:04*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> 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).

One man's impending catastrophe is another
man's hysteria. Perhaps I feel about global warming
the way you feel about creeping statism; perhaps
what both of us write on the subjects looks like
screeching to an outsider.

But I'm not writing to screech about what should be done
(statistly or otherwise) about global warming. I have
opinions, of course, but how best to do something, if it
should or can be done, is really a question of implementation
that economists can try to figure out. My opinions on that
aren't terribly informed, so it's up to you, Krugman, and
Salma Hayek to figure it out. The only part of my opinions
that are moderately informed are on the evidence,
which is actually fairly solid.

I just don't like seeing the "well, we have to look at both
sides of the argument" when one side is Senator Inhofe
obfuscation and wishful thinking. There are people
(powerful people, not Kunich people) who
are perfectly happy to deny the facts when they don't
behave as desired, and those people are willing to
screw the reality-based community on many subjects,
not just climate change. So I don't feel comfortable
washing my hands of the argument just because I'm
not a climate scientist.

Ben

[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]

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.

[Jack Hollis]

On Wed, 7 May 2008 17:35:42 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>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.


The earth's temperature has always changed, it is currently changing
and it will continue to change.

Very few scientists would question that the earth has gotten warmer
over the last century. Determining the average temperature of the
earth is not an exact science, but very few serious scientists would
disagree that the earth is in a warming cycle.

There is also scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This
has been proven by empirical experiments which have been replicated
numerous times. You can take that as a fact.

Human activity has been increasing the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that human activity is having an
effect on global temperature.

Going beyond that is where the trouble lies.

The temperature of the earth is effected by numerous factors, of which
the greenhouse effect is only one. It is impossible to determine
accurately what percent of the earth's temperature is the result of
the greenhouse effect. The overall climate system is not understood
well enough to do that.

To add to the problem, the greenhouse effect itself is a very complex
process. It is impossible to accurately measure exactly how much CO2
contributes to the overall greenhouse effect.

Thus it is impossible for there to be any scientific proof of exactly
how much humans are contributing to global warming.

In reality, there aren't two camps to this issue. The reality is that
there is a continuum, of opinions. The top end of the spectrum is
seen in the UN ICCP report which states that it is "highly likely"
that a "significant" amount of the warming seen in the past 100 years
is of human origin. Obviously even this statement is not very
precise. On the other end are scientists that say that CO2
contribution to the greenhouse effect is small and that human activity
is only a small percent of that amount.

The bottom line is that no one really knows for sure. I'm rooting for
the scientists that minimize the human impact because