The surge



"SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > On Feb 7, 3:12 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> I don't see your point.

>
> Maybe look at the base again: "If people need less energy..." Nowhere
> is that said. It is the opposite. Also, purge "need" from the
> language. Just say "use." They'll *use* more.
>
>> Tom was saying his energy bill would go up.

>
> It will (for tax "solutions"). So will everyone else's energy bill in
> CA. (It'll go up if he get's richer too, since he'll be spending
> more. So leftist solutions basically say to stall wealth increase, or
> even to reverse it. That is some bad ju-ju. I have no idea what
> right-wingers say.)
>
>> The paper you link to
>> indicates the opposite is true,...

>
> It doesn't say that. Read it again. For example: "The end result is
> a new balance between supply and demand at a /higher level/ of supply
> and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response." [my
> emphasis]


And totally aside from the issues of More Efficient Energy Production
Leading To Cheaper Power which leads to higher energy use in total - there's
the problem with global population increase which is much faster than any
efficiency increases. No matter what else happens energy use goes up and the
CO2 output increases more rapidly BECAUSE the population growth and hence
energy consumption is occuring not here in the USA so much as in China,
India and Africa where they cannot afford clean energy sources. Over the
next century the vast majority of energy use will occur in the third world
countries. In 8 more years it's predicted that China will exceed the CO2
output of the USA and it will be generated by high sulfer coal fired power
plants.

Asher will spend his time telling us that the USA should solve the problems
of the world and that it is all our fault that we wish to live comfortably.

Al Lunatic Gore was just on TV this morning with another lunatic offering
$25 million for "ideas to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere."

Now intelligent beings might see a problem here. Let's say that we followed
one line that was suggested - that we genetically engineer an ocean plankton
to use more CO2 - what's to stop it from removing too much? Would we then be
trying to find some way to introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere?

Maybe I can get some of that fortune by suggesting we solve the problem by
putting the world back in order. North Africa used to be a large forest that
was hued down to build the tremendous war fleets of the Mediterranean and
later the world's oceans. Why not install desalinization plants to supply
the water to replant the forest to change the weather patterns in North
Africa to return the semi-tropical conditions that used to be there before
it changed from deforestation?
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> > (I asked):
>> >> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog
>> >> > food,
>> >> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you
>> >> > need
>> >> > in America the Pensionless?

>>
>> > (TK replied, as usual):
>> >> Would you care to compare bank accounts?

>>
>> > You were the one playing the victim card.

>>
>> Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the
>> facts.
>> You believe that to be playing the "victim card". To a plumber whose
>> entire
>> life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every
>> available
>> housewife I suppose you might really think that.
>>

> Tom, The man of the people showing his respect for working tradesmen.
> It's tough to have empoathy when your the worlds most excellent
> genius.


Are you playing the victim card now?

>> > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

>>
>> By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
>> richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

>
> Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.


That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services it
will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people whom
Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set upon
individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.

>> > When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
>> > you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
>> > first, of course.

>>
>> Oh???http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm"The demand for oil is
>> increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around
>> the
>> world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China
>> and
>> India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large .
>> power
>> production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
>> economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."

> No ****, development, in developing countries, needs quick and easy
> power, no matter how dirty. What a surprise.
>>
>> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
>> Asher
>> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
>> particularly intelligent.

>
> Yep along with JT, Howard, Henry, Me, and everyone else, were all
> morons except maybe Tosi, right?


I see you truly believe in refuting false statements. Oh, wait, you aren't
refuting anything - you're just trying to change the subject after being so
wrong.

> You occasionally make decent points, and are one of the few here
> vocally conservative, but I've always said that it's more important to
> condemn and question those who are on your side when they are out
> there.


That's funny - I thought you've always said that you're against anyone
that's against anything that you ever thought was nice. Sort of like a
housewife without any knowledge of the world and the way it thinks who voted
for Kennedy because he was such a handsome man and never believed that rumor
that he collected more votes in Chicago than there were registered voters.
 
"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.


That's the politicians who include the authors of ALL of the study papers
that IPCC used in concocting their fiction.
 
On Feb 9, 12:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >>news:[email protected]...

>
> >> > On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> > (I asked):
> >> >> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog
> >> >> > food,
> >> >> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you
> >> >> > need
> >> >> > in America the Pensionless?

>
> >> > (TK replied, as usual):
> >> >> Would you care to compare bank accounts?

>
> >> > You were the one playing the victim card.

>
> >> Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the
> >> facts.
> >> You believe that to be playing the "victim card". To a plumber whose
> >> entire
> >> life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every
> >> available
> >> housewife I suppose you might really think that.

>
> > Tom, The man of the people showing his respect for working tradesmen.
> > It's tough to have empoathy when your the worlds most excellent
> > genius.

>
> Are you playing the victim card now?


No I'm calling you a hypocrite.
>
> >> > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

>
> >> By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> >> richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

>
> > Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> > moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> > better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.

>
> That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services it
> will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people whom
> Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set upon
> individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.


I have no idea WTF you are talking about, and I'm doing fine. Don't
need a shitload of money to have a good life.
Let me know what I'm cowardly about sometime, I'd like to know.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> > When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
> >> > you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
> >> > first, of course.

>
> >> Oh???http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm"The demand for oil is
> >> increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around
> >> the
> >> world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China
> >> and
> >> India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large .
> >> power
> >> production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
> >> economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."

> > No ****, development, in developing countries, needs quick and easy
> > power, no matter how dirty. What a surprise.

>
> >> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> >> Asher
> >> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> >> particularly intelligent.

>
> > Yep along with JT, Howard, Henry, Me, and everyone else, were all
> > morons except maybe Tosi, right?

>
> I see you truly believe in refuting false statements. Oh, wait, you aren't
> refuting anything - you're just trying to change the subject after being so
> wrong.
>
> > You occasionally make decent points, and are one of the few here
> > vocally conservative, but I've always said that it's more important to
> > condemn and question those who are on your side when they are out
> > there.

>
> That's funny - I thought you've always said that you're against anyone
> that's against anything that you ever thought was nice. Sort of like a
> housewife without any knowledge of the world and the way it thinks who voted
> for Kennedy because he was such a handsome man and never believed that rumor
> that he collected more votes in Chicago than there were registered voters.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Still pretty baffled, but if you mean I disagree with people who see
things differently from the way I do, you're right.
**** I disagree with everyone, and that's a good thing because if
everyone thought exactly the same thing we'd never learn anything.
I'm a rich person because of all the people that I consider to be
friends, who have a totally different view than I do. It makes me
challenge and check my beliefs and facts, and I learn from it. Makes
me practice my beliefs in tolerance, free expression, and civility
which are good things too.
The amazing thing, Tom, Is that I'd be happy to have any of them
visit, or sit down and have some beers while we talk. I think most
would say the same of me.
That makes me a very wealthy person.
The only things that really count in the end are your friends and
family. The more real friends the better.
Bill C
 
On Feb 8, 8:24 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:43 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 5:27 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:

>
> > > When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
> > > look as attractive.

>
> > Mr. Tax Religion,

>
> That's not fair. I never advocated taxing religion.
> I'd settle for fees and burdensome regulation.


Those are taxes. So is inflating the currency. That's why tax is
your religion. Nothing anywhere should escape taxation. You'd tax
squirrels if you could, even Howard.
 
"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Nearly all of the climate dynamicists on the planet agree that CO2 is
>>responsible for the warming. You've provided nothing in the way of
>>credible scientific evidence to dispute them.

>
> In fact, they've provided no evidence to support that CO2 is a major
> contributor to global warming because science is unable to do that.


Just because CO2 is only 2% of the greenhouse effect doesn't mean that it
isn't the most important.......
 
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:31:56 -0800, Howard Kveck
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Anyway, Jack, can you seriously dispute what the Prospect
>> >study turned up or their methodology?

>>
>> What can you dispute with the Washington Post story.

>
> The page you linked does not show that Abramoff "directed" the
> contributions to
> Dems. It does show that the tribal contributions went up in total, but
> doesn't offer
> any proof that Abramoff directed his tribal clients to donate any money to
> the Dems.


Completely true if you're a blind idiot.

>> Here's another more detailed story of Harry Reid's dealings with
>> Abramoff from
>> the AP. I see no difference between Democrats and republicans in terms of
>> corruption. They're all corrupt. If you want to live in a fantasy
>> land and think that the Democrats are not corrupt, then go ahead.

>
> Jack, you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't make any claims that
> the
> Democrats aren't getting campaign contributions from individuals and
> organizations
> who are seeking to influence them. I know they are. I'm saying that
> Abramoff
> wouldn't direct his clients to give money to Democrats. It goes against
> his
> interests to do that.


I see, besides being a blind idiot, you're also stupid. All the tribes got
together and said, "Since we're paying Abramoff so much money let's throw a
lot more around to whomever we might like to." And DAMN, the only people
they could think of were Democrats.
 
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow
>> Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval
>> for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have
>> rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by
>> Abramoff.
>>
>> "The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully
>> leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.
>>
>> The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking
>> President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million
>> for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the
>> Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for
>> school building.
>>
>> Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners _ including Platt
>> and Ayoob _ donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election
>> campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to
>> Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

>
> Yes, the Anteup Caliente and the Saginaw Chipperins.
> Noble tribes.
>
> Thanks for the good read. While we turn over these
> bones, the party goes on. Who is in who's pocket now?
> Answer: everybody.


That's correct Michael. The question is - why doesn't anyone want to clean
it up? The answer is - because they prefer political power to clean
government.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 9, 12:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Are you playing the victim card now?

>
> No I'm calling you a hypocrite.


But you're doing it through tears about how I'm looking down my nose at a
poor lowly retired plumber who is arguing physics.

>> That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services
>> it
>> will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people
>> whom
>> Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set
>> upon
>> individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.

>
> I have no idea WTF you are talking about, and I'm doing fine. Don't
> need a shitload of money to have a good life.
> Let me know what I'm cowardly about sometime, I'd like to know.


You are the one picking that old saw about Jesus claim that it would be
easier for a camel to walk through the eye of the needle than for a rich man
to enter the gates of heaven. And when it's pointed out to you that you are
FAR richer in real terms as a retired plumber than those rich men Jesus
talked about you want to turn to relativism instead of reality.

You're a coward pure and simple. You shoot your mouth off but are frightened
to address the actuality of your own statements.

> **** I disagree with everyone, and that's a good thing because if
> everyone thought exactly the same thing we'd never learn anything.


I'm glad that you're admitting that you're arguing simply for the sake of
argument. End of conversation.
 
"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>>
>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
>> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>

>
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>
> So if you're wrong about the authors ....


Anyone else notice that this are NOT the list of people who have written the
Executive Summary?

More importantly I hope everyone is aware that the actual report itself has
been held up because they are CHANGING the actual report to match the
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!!!!

Now forgive me, but shouldn't the summary reflect the report and not the
report reflect the summary?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/Doc_3rev.pdf

"Coordinating Lead Authors have identified some changes to the underlying
report that will ensure consistency with the language used in the approved
Summary for Policymakers, or provide additional clarification as agreed at
the Working Group Session."
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have
>>> heard the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>>

>>
>> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>>
>> So if you're wrong about the authors ....

>
> Anyone else notice that this are NOT the list of people who have
> written the Executive Summary?
>
> More importantly I hope everyone is aware that the actual report
> itself has been held up because they are CHANGING the actual report to
> match the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!!!!
>
> Now forgive me, but shouldn't the summary reflect the report and not
> the report reflect the summary?
>
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/Doc_3rev.pdf
>
> "Coordinating Lead Authors have identified some changes to the
> underlying report that will ensure consistency with the language used
> in the approved Summary for Policymakers, or provide additional
> clarification as agreed at the Working Group Session."


You're forgiven since I don't think you understand how something like this
works. Here's a rough idea of what probably went on related to writing
the report and summary: the nearly 200 authors write a draft of the
report, the working group meets on the draft, they make comments, the
authors make changes, the community at large suggest changes, the working
group goes over it again, suggest more changes, give it to the authors,
more revisions, finally they have the final draft, ready for the external
reviewers, the reviewers go over it, the working group meets, discusses the
reviewers comments, and kicks the final draft back to the authors with the
changes agreed on by the working group based on the reviewers comments, the
authors start revising their parts of the report to conform to the reviews
or arguing with the working group and lead authors that the changes are not
scientifically sound, there might be another meeting of the working group
if enough authors have problems with enough pieces to warrant it, but if
things are going smoothly, while the authors are working on the revision,
the working group starts writing the executive summary because at this
point they know that from here on out the major points of the report are
fixed and their "final draft" of the full report is pretty close to what
will be ultimately produced. However, the working group knows that at some
point they have to go back and make sure the report and summary use
precisely the same language because everyone will nitpick this to death if
there are inconsistencies. This might be one rational explain for a delay
between the appearance of the full report and the draft of the summary. Of
course, they didn't realize you were clever enough to see through their
smokescreen and they will come for you. Your Jedi mind control tricks,
ninja fighting skills, and heavy weaponry won't save you when they descend
on you using irony, sarcasm, pedantry, and sesquipedalianism.

--
Bill Asher
 
William Asher wrote:

> sesquipedalianism


A pedaling technique for 6 legged aliens or synchronised pedaling for a
team of six in a TTT ?
 
On Feb 9, 11:18 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> >> > (TK replied, as usual):
> >> >> Would you care to compare bank accounts?

>
> >> > You were the one playing the victim card.

>
> >> Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the
> >> facts.
> >> You believe that to be playing the "victim card".


You posted a bunch of conjecture, not "facts".

> >> To a plumber whose
> >> entire
> >> life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every
> >> available
> >> housewife I suppose you might really think that.


Alone with housewives, pants half off. Is that what you think plumbing
is about? I bet you were one of the "conservatives" complaining
("oinking and grunting") about the terrible intrusion on your lives
when the 1.6 gal flush toilet was mandated. "Conservatives" who don't
really want to save.

> >> By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> >> richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.


You call yourself a good Catholic after a remark like that?

> > Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> > moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> > better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.


This is why I bounced your email. Like listening to Limbaugh. Spinning
your wheels and throwing mud without moving anything. Well, that's why
I don't even bother with Limbaugh on a "knowing what the bastards are
up to" basis any more. Zzzzzzzzz!

> That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services it
> will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people whom
> Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set upon
> individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.


What a stinker.

> >> > When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
> >> > you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
> >> > first, of course.

>
> >> Oh???http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm"The demand for oil is
> >> increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around
> >> the
> >> world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China
> >> and
> >> India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large .
> >> power
> >> production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
> >> economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."

> > No ****, development, in developing countries, needs quick and easy
> > power, no matter how dirty. What a surprise.


Why dirty? No population control ("people as a resource" catching up
with them). I've always loved that one. "People as a resource" really
means "I'll be able to hire workers for next to nothing". Wake up.

> >> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> >> Asher
> >> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> >> particularly intelligent.


Zzzzzzzz!

> I see you truly believe in refuting false statements. Oh, wait, you aren't
> refuting anything - you're just trying to change the subject after being so
> wrong.


Cue the mirror!

> That's funny - I thought you've always said that you're against anyone
> that's against anything that you ever thought was nice. Sort of like a
> housewife without any knowledge of the world and the way it thinks who voted
> for Kennedy because he was such a handsome man and never believed that rumor
> that he collected more votes in Chicago than there were registered voters.


(trying to follow the twists and turns): Babble babble, mudslinging,
tacit "communist" reference, usual standard right wing baloney; maybe
the housewife, having finished with the plumber, was dreaming of
something more illustrious, even if she had to share with many...
Whoa! Comparing vote-getting strategies between Kennedy and Bushco,
you'd do well to start putting up some duct tape on that glass house
you're moving into, TK! --D-y
 
On 9 Feb 2007 17:01:18 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>>
>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
>> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>

>
>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>
>So if you're wrong about the authors ....
>
>--
>Bill Asher


That appears to be the case. However, there aren't 1,500 names there
either.
 
On Feb 9, 12:16 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message


(example 1):
> But you're doing it through tears about how I'm looking down my nose at a
> poor lowly retired plumber who is arguing physics.


(example 2):
> You are the one picking that old saw about Jesus claim that it would be
> easier for a camel to walk through the eye of the needle than for a rich man
> to enter the gates of heaven. And when it's pointed out to you that you are
> FAR richer in real terms as a retired plumber than those rich men Jesus
> talked about you want to turn to relativism instead of reality.


That was me, bozo.

> You're a coward pure and simple. You shoot your mouth off (urrk, I mean, "snip")


You're so busy shooting your mouth off you can't keep attribution
straight. Not even close! You don't even remember who the people are
you're blathering against.

Not good for the credibility, TK.

> I'm glad that you're admitting that you're arguing simply for the sake of
> argument.


No no no. I don't want silence taken for assent. Not with Tom Kunich.

> End of conversation.


YOU'RE GOING AWAY AGAIN???? Are we ever luck... no, I don't believe
it. No way. He's on too much of a roll, so to speak.

Sure enough, there's another "Tom Kunich" post by date, below... I
wonder, is this one the reply to where he's finally read Baghdad Year
Zero, by Naomi Klein, in Harpers? $.50 says no. Takers? (disclaimer
on supposed bet being offered for any purposes other than a humorous
poke at Mt. Kunich) --D-y
 
On Feb 8, 5:37 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> > > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

>
> > By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> > richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

>
> Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.


If you want to jump on the "Kunich is a retard" bandwagon, it might be
a good idea to pick an instance where he is wrong. (Hey, a free
tip!) Your cue should have been that Paterson was involved.

> If it makes me scum, so be it. I'm standing with Howard, TP, Kyle,
> Greg, Curtis, etc...


Are you saying the people standing with you are "scum?"
 
"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9 Feb 2007 17:01:18 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
>>> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>>

>>
>>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>>
>>So if you're wrong about the authors ....
>>
>>--
>>Bill Asher

>
> That appears to be the case. However, there aren't 1,500 names there
> either.


You mean that 71 isn't the same as 1,500?
 
On Feb 9, 1:16 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 9, 12:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> >> Are you playing the victim card now?

>
> > No I'm calling you a hypocrite.

>
> But you're doing it through tears about how I'm looking down my nose at a
> poor lowly retired plumber who is arguing physics.


I think your being an asshole and hypocrite, no tears. Nothing to
merit them. He sure as hell is capable of handling a discussion with
anyone, including you.

>
> >> That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services
> >> it
> >> will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people
> >> whom
> >> Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set
> >> upon
> >> individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.

>
> > I have no idea WTF you are talking about, and I'm doing fine. Don't
> > need a shitload of money to have a good life.
> > Let me know what I'm cowardly about sometime, I'd like to know.

>
> You are the one picking that old saw about Jesus claim that it would be
> easier for a camel to walk through the eye of the needle than for a rich man
> to enter the gates of heaven. And when it's pointed out to you that you are
> FAR richer in real terms as a retired plumber than those rich men Jesus
> talked about you want to turn to relativism instead of reality.
>
> You're a coward pure and simple. You shoot your mouth off but are frightened
> to address the actuality of your own statements.


I feel that I defend my positions quite effectively while showing
respect and courtesy to those I'm having the discussion with 99% of
the time. That's why, between rational people, it's called reasoned
discourse.
>
> > **** I disagree with everyone, and that's a good thing because if
> > everyone thought exactly the same thing we'd never learn anything.

>
> I'm glad that you're admitting that you're arguing simply for the sake of
> argument. End of conversation.


Nope, I discuss things to get other people's viewpoints, information
they have that I don't, to see another perspective on things, and to
learn new things. I also really enjoy good talk, and argument.
Sometimes I change my position, sometimes I don't. The great thing is
by being reasonable and fairly courteous I get to enjoy being exposed
to a great range of thought, and people.
It's too bad you can't see value in that.
You argue to win. I discuss to learn. Significant difference.
Bill C
 
On Feb 9, 4:05 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:37 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> > > > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

>
> > > By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> > > richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

>
> > Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> > moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> > better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.

>
> If you want to jump on the "Kunich is a retard" bandwagon, it might be
> a good idea to pick an instance where he is wrong. (Hey, a free
> tip!) Your cue should have been that Paterson was involved.
>
> > If it makes me scum, so be it. I'm standing with Howard, TP, Kyle,
> > Greg, Curtis, etc...

>
> Are you saying the people standing with you are "scum?"


I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.
Lots of really good people in there. Sometimes being declared an
"enemy" is something to be incredibly proud of.
Bill C
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 9 Feb 2007 17:01:18 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>>>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
>>>> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>>>
>>>
>>>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>>>
>>>So if you're wrong about the authors ....
>>>
>>>--
>>>Bill Asher

>>
>> That appears to be the case. However, there aren't 1,500 names there
>> either.

>
> You mean that 71 isn't the same as 1,500?
>


Listen you two chuckleheads, the 1500 isn't pulled out of someone's ass. I
can't find the breakdown for the 4th report, but for the 3rd IPCC report
that came out in 2001, the breakdown for the scientific assessment was:

123 lead authors
516 contributing authors
21 review editors
300 expert reviewers
4 calling birds
3 french toast
2 Canadians
1 and a partridge in a pair tree

This information is from:

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/ipcc.html

If you leave off the final 4 members, who didn't really add anything to the
group except a humorous sign-off, that totals nearly 1,000 people. As I
said before, it is likely the composition of the group that worked on the
4th assessement is easly larger by another 500 people, especially
considering the group of lead authors increased from 123 to nearly 200. If
you are not going to at least try to understand what I am saying, don't
pretend it is me who is the one making things up.

This isn't skullduggery. The IPCC review is an open process. If you got
yourself a Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences or physics or chemistry and did
some research and got it published it is highly likely you could be part of
the 1500 people. It's getting to be that being part of the IPCC is sort of
like the being part of the group of men that have felt up Paris Hilton at
bars. As a relative fraction of the overall population not many men have
done that, but of the men who go to bars with Paris Hilton almost all have
felt her up. It's sort of like eating the free peanuts, except most people
don't wash their hands after taking a handful of nuts.

--
Bill Asher