Al Those Great Scientists Here

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

In article <482314ac$0$14355$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Ted van de Weteringe <myfullname@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

Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.

--
Michael Press

On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.

Read the link.

On May 8, 12:58 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> Read the link.

Ah, but reading the link would be `reality based'.

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.

On May 7, 7:44 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <dustoyev...@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.

Which changes the "500" bullshit exactly how?

I'm not talking about global warming (hint hint).

"Lying" is the problem. Let's stay there and get that straightened
out first, OK? --D-y

On May 8, 2:16 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 7 May 2008 20:28:48 GMT, 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.
>
> 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.

That sounds good... except you'll be starving because of decades of
drought in crop producing areas and you won't be driving because all
the ports and many of the oil fields world-wide will be underwater.
But what the hell, go ahead and pick out a nice bathing suit.
-Paul

On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:55:57 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <carbide@egine.com>
wrote:

>> 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.
>
>That sounds good... except you'll be starving because of decades of
>drought in crop producing areas

Nonsense, my fridge will be stocked full of Alaska oranges and
grapefruits.

>and you won't be driving because all
>the ports and many of the oil fields world-wide will be underwater.

I'll be driving my electric car to the beach that will be charged at
home from electricity produced by nuclear energy.

>But what the hell, go ahead and pick out a nice bathing suit.
>-Paul

I prefer natural fibers so it will be made from Canadian cotton.

Donald Munro wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Bob has weird ideas about voyeurism.

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 I have very
little hope that there will be any reduction in CO2 emission. In
fact, I'm sure that the opposite is true. CO2 emissions will continue
to increase.

Of course, there are some people who think that global warming isn't
that bad and that humans will adjust just fine. Or perhaps humans may
come up with a technical solution that will allow them to control the
CO2 levels in the atmosphere, or at least stop the human contribution
to CO2.

In article
<2ef51ac6-1cf4-4d7f-8b2e-f24dff3dafd8@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> Read the link.

I read it, and stand by what I said.

--
Michael Press

In article
<52b60b1b-bff8-459f-a992-875ba1b1f95b@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 12:58 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
> >
> > Read the link.
>
> Ah, but reading the link would be `reality based'.

I read it. Now what?

--
Michael Press

On May 8, 6:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <2ef51ac6-1cf4-4d7f-8b2e-f24dff3da...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > Read the link.
>
> I read it, and stand by what I said.

I am not surprised.

On May 8, 6:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <52b60b1b-bff8-459f-a992-875ba1b1f...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 12:58 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > > Read the link.
>
> > Ah, but reading the link would be `reality based'.
>
> I read it. Now what?
>
> --
> Michael Press

I think a rational person would come to the opposite conclusion from
yours. This is the ultimate in hubris: "We're an empire now, and when
we act, we create our own reality." No one owns reality. There is no
hubris involved in studying reality, or acknowledging it. Quite the
opposite- denying reality because it doesn't give the answer you want
is hubris. And futility.

Maybe you're coming from a religious angle. Doesn't matter whether you
think the laws of physics were laid down by God or not. They are still
immutable. You can believe it's because God decrees it, or not.
Doesn't affect the outcome. The greenhouse effect is reality no matter
what your faith or lack thereof.

You just plunged in my estimation. I've mentally penciled in
"crackpot"
-Paul

Dans le message de
news:0cce639d-f38c-49df-ad74-8bbd8fc866b4@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Paul G. <carbide@egine.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 8, 2:16 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 7 May 2008 20:28:48 GMT, 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> That sounds good... except you'll be starving because of decades of
> drought in crop producing areas

Think: VIRGIN TUNDRA !!

> and you won't be driving because all
> the ports and many of the oil fields world-wide will be underwater.

A novel idea - extracting oil and gas from the marine environment - perhaps
they'll figure out some kind of technology, maybe?

In article <482314ac$0$14355$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Ted van de Weteringe <myfullname@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.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

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.

Bret

In article <bb78e344-0cc3-4681-9e64-134f7271ea27@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Bret <bret.wade@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."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rove_dukes_it_out_with_NPR_1025.html

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On May 8, 8:35 pm, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:0cce639d-f38c-49df-ad74-8bbd8fc866b4@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
> Paul G. <carb...@egine.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > On May 8, 2:16 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 May 2008 20:28:48 GMT, 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.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > That sounds good... except you'll be starving because of decades of
> > drought in crop producing areas
>
> Think: VIRGIN TUNDRA !!
>
> > and you won't be driving because all
> > the ports and many of the oil fields world-wide will be underwater.
>
> A novel idea - extracting oil and gas from the marine environment - perhaps
> they'll figure out some kind of technology, maybe?

You're not clear on the concept. Every seaport in the world is going
to be under water. Many trillions of dollars of infrastructure,
refineries, etc would have to be rebuilt. What is going to happen is
mass starvation, millions of refugees, and wars over resources. No
one is going to be planting wheat and corn on "virgin tundra" soon
enough to feed the existing population. There will be a massive die-
off.
-Paul

On May 8, 4:42 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:55:57 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >That sounds good... except you'll be starving because of decades of
> >drought in crop producing areas
>
> Nonsense, my fridge will be stocked full of Alaska oranges and
> grapefruits.
>
> >and you won't be driving because all
> >the ports and many of the oil fields world-wide will be underwater.
>
> I'll be driving my electric car to the beach that will be charged at
> home from electricity produced by nuclear energy.
>
> >But what the hell, go ahead and pick out a nice bathing suit.
> >-Paul
>
> I prefer natural fibers so it will be made from Canadian cotton.

Heh heh... where to start... maybe you haven't noticed but many of
the nuclear power plants are on the coasts. They aren't going to work
very well underwater. What are you going to buy Canadian cotton with-
"Bush Bucks"? They'll be worth about 2 cents Canadian by then. And
there's going to be an awkward period of mass starvation between the
time the Florida orange groves are wiped out and the new ones in
Alaska start producing...
-Paul

On May 8, 6:38 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 6:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <2ef51ac6-1cf4-4d7f-8b2e-f24dff3da...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > > Read the link.
>
> > I read it, and stand by what I said.
>
> I am not surprised.

"Reality-based" in this context isn't an assertion of
empirical certainty. It's a Homeric epithet.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/homer/qt/HomericEpithet.htm

Ben