The Writing is on the Wall

[Robert Chung]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> As for "sloppy". You really are pretensious if you believe that
> printing that makes you look anything other than a twit. How many
> papers are retracted each year because of errors by assistants?

So you're saying Nobel Laureates are in on technical meetings about how
equipment works but Lindzen gives his stuff to assistants. Hmmm.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> As for "sloppy". You really are pretensious if you believe that
>> printing that makes you look anything other than a twit. How many
>> papers are retracted each year because of errors by assistants?
>
> So you're saying Nobel Laureates are in on technical meetings about how
> equipment works but Lindzen gives his stuff to assistants. Hmmm.

Well, I'm sure that you're easily as bright as a professor at MIT and you
ought to know all about it. As for that particular Frenchman, I couldn't
care less what you believe.

It seems pretty obvious that you are more interested in throwing stones than
discussing the global warming fraud. I remember an old science fiction book
by the title, I think, "They'd Rather Be Right". You and the latest fear
fade group remind me a great deal of the point of that book.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Jim Flom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:O0rFh.967$Xi2.778@edtnps89...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote
>>
>> So you're saying that because he's funded by an oil company he is
>> automatically crooked. Good call from someone that doesn't have any
>> problem with the fact that the only research papers that found bicycle
>> helmets to increase safety were funded by the helmet manufacturers.
>
> Thomas, I gave you all four, remember? That's your four in the face of
> hundreds.

Sorry, but the fast is that you didn't give me "hundreds". What's more - if
you bothered to actually read the scientific papers cited in the IPCC you'd
be surprised that most of them make NO CLAIMS about anthropogenic global
warming.

Hmm, let's be frank about this CO2 has increased in the atmosphere at the
same time man has been generating energy. Of course the rise started in 1780
or so which doesn't fit very closely with the fact that man has only been
generating enough CO2 since about 1950 to even consider as part of the
problem.

This change is about 90 ppm in 200 years. So what exactly does that mean?
Think of it this way - my brother used to keep tropical fish. He had a 50
gallon tank. That's about 190 liters. An American standard drop is 82 ul -
so the change in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than two drops and a half of
water in that 50 gallon tank. Talk about pissing in the ocean.

And you believe that THAT is going to DESTROY the earth.

> What does it mean for me in practical terms? It boils down to more energy
> efficient light bulbs, a push mower, and riding my bike more, plus a few
> others. So I save a few hundred dollars a year, and am healthier. Gee
> whiz, I guess those tree huggers sure snookered me.

Well, that's fine - but as I pointed out - if EVERYONE in the world more
than met the Kyoto Protocols the IPCC estimates that the temperature would
change only .07 degrees C.

Instead we see that the same European nations that were so serious about
signing the Kyoto treaty have actually almost doubled their emissions and
not cut them. China will surpass the USA in CO2 generation within a couple
of years. India is ramping up and will surpass the USA within a maximum of
two decades. And they aren't required to control ANYTHING by the Kyoto
treaty.

The USA is the ONLY country in the world that is actually reducing it's CO2
generation and that is because we're rich enough to afford alternate methods
and to pay for less efficient but less poluting energy sources. But no need
to worry, with the present "environmentalism at any cost" idealism, it won't
be long before we can't afford those less poluting sources. The Pacific
states have already said they intend to limit the CO2 generation they cause
which has already started the few remaining industries looking for a new
home. It is likely that they will move completely out of the USA and into
some country where sanity of a sort still rules.

 

[Phil Holman]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 27, 6:02 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>>
>> >> How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with
>> >> Tom's
>> >> statement.
>>
>> > Out of how many thousand?
>>
>> So how many do you need? Are we going to do the "reality is subject
>> to a
>> majority vote" sketch again.
>
> I need to see well-supported arguments that can attract
> a significant number of people who have thought seriously
> about the issue. I can't give you a percentage for
> "significant" but it clearly has to be more than ~1%.
> The point is that you can find 20 people with PhDs to
> support just about any crazy idea, so your original
> offer to come up with 20 people proves nothing.
>
>> > In my field (which is much smaller than all the fields
>> > that go into global climate studies), I think I could dig
>> > up 10-20 names of people who dissent from the majority
>> > position on a number of issues (like the expansion of the
>> > universe).
>> >Some of them are very eminent smart people.
>> > It doesn't mean there is any validity to their position.
>> > It means rather that even people whose job it is to
>> > remorselessly evaluate the evidence can paint themselves
>> > into an intellectual corner.
>>
>> You know as well as I do there are instances where the majority
>> position
>> has been wrong. A lower probability but still a possibility. Are you
>> basing your position on your own knowledge of the subject or are you
>> just siding with the majority?
>
> The thing is, people read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific
> Revolutions (or absorb the ideas, which have permeated
> our culture) and they think that fields commonly undergo
> paradigm shifts and the brave minority overthrows the
> herd-thinking majority. Like Wegener and continental
> drift or Semmelweis and the importance of sterilization
> in preventing infection, or the rise of early 20th century
> modern physics. It happens, as in the cases I mentioned
> (though it should be noted that there were good reasons
> why people didn't believe Wegener.) But the fable of
> the herd majority is rarely completely accurate.
>
> In the case of global climate change, what you have
> is rather the opposite time-sequence. At first, many
> people didn't believe the mechanisms. Then they were
> skeptical about the observations. (See for example the
> history of CO2 science I posted earlier,
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm )
>
> In 1988, a lot of the relevant people said we didn't
> have enough evidence yet. By now, most of those people
> have been convinced. What we see is the process by which
> an idea moves from conjecture to consensus. In order to
> do this it has to convince a large number of people
> whose job it is to be skeptical. At this point it is
> rare for there to be a 180 degree turn in favor of
> the holdouts. In fact, the holdouts are usually not
> brave dissenters introducing a new idea, but the last
> of the old guard who just can't admit that somebody
> else was right.
>
> I don't work on climate studies, but if you want to
> have any kind of non-Kunichian dialogue about it, you
> can start by backing up positions with facts rather than
> implying that I'm "just siding with the majority."
>

I ask a simple question and your reply consists of evidence by way of a
shift in thinking of most of the relevant people while admitting that
you do not work on climate studies. Is there something you find
uncomfortable about this?

I don't work on climate studies either but I remain unconvinced that we
have enough answers. More specifically, some of the conclusions here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.

90% may be a good level of confidence for making the kinds of changes
being proposed but it's hardly a level you would apply to hard
scientific evidence.

This article is a good "summary" of quite a few of the issues.
http://www.ensleyconsulting.com/write4.html

Phil H

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Feb 28, 5:53 pm, Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Raptor" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> >> Like Shrub gives a **** about the Constitution.

Like any prez does. This place is loaded with glue sniffers.

> > I'd be willing to bet that you've never actually read the Constitution
> > yourself.
>
> You must have some extra laying around then.

Everyone one I can find has been bent, folded, spindled, mutilated,
had holes cut in it, etc...

http://www.mises.org/images4/fdrmyth.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691123764/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-9303884-5681661#reader-link

> If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
> speaking German now.

FDR had no inherent problem with fascism, per se.

"'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White
House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with
that admirable Italian gentleman'" -- http://www.mises.org/story/2312

http://www.mises.org/story/2360

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 10:41 am, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message


> >> You know as well as I do there are instances where the majority
> >> position
> >> has been wrong. A lower probability but still a possibility. Are you
> >> basing your position on your own knowledge of the subject or are you
> >> just siding with the majority?
>

> I ask a simple question and your reply consists of evidence by way of a
> shift in thinking of most of the relevant people while admitting that
> you do not work on climate studies. Is there something you find
> uncomfortable about this?

No. You asked a question with a pejorative implication
(am I basing it on my own knowledge or just following
the majority) and I gave it an honest answer. In fact,
I don't work on climate studies, but that does not mean
I am ignorant of recent developments in the field. I can
read papers and listen to talks; but I can't write papers
in that field.

I can't write a paper on stellar evolution either, but I
can tell when the thinking of most of the relevant people
is something I should listen to, and I can tell when
someone is BSing. Reading the language climate change
skeptics use, I can tell that many of them are now reduced
to seizing on the way that scientists phrase things
conservatively and retailing this to the public, which
understandably is not used to the technical lingo.
It is a FUD campaign (fear, uncertainty, doubt) much like
what software makers sometimes engage in.


> I don't work on climate studies either but I remain unconvinced that we
> have enough answers. More specifically, some of the conclusions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
>
> 90% may be a good level of confidence for making the kinds of changes
> being proposed but it's hardly a level you would apply to hard
> scientific evidence.
>
> This article is a good "summary" of quite a few of the issues.http://www.ensleyconsulting.com/write4.html
>

When in a scientific field do we ever have "enough"
answers? There's always something more to study.
But in this case, the basic outlines aren't any longer
in doubt. IMO, that 90% number exists because there
is a well financed campaign against the evidence. If you
talk to somebody who works in the field, they are more
certain than 90%.

Ben

 

[William Asher]

Phil Holman wrote:

<snip>
> Don't worry, there will be plenty banking on that fact. So, if we reduce
> CO2 emissions and the atmospheric content becomes stable, would we stem
> the current climate change? It'll be interesting to see how a reduction
> in emissions (if we ever get any) correlates with warming over the next
> few decades. Will we make a dent in the 1.4 to 5.8 deg C predicted
> increase over the next century?

Here's something else you can bank on, nothing will stop climate change at
this point and there will always be a few lone voices that get far more
media play than they deserve who will claim it would have happened anyway.

Why do you not believe the IPCC?

--
Bill Asher

 

[William Asher]

[email protected] wrote:

> When in a scientific field do we ever have "enough"
> answers? There's always something more to study.
> But in this case, the basic outlines aren't any longer
> in doubt. IMO, that 90% number exists because there
> is a well financed campaign against the evidence. If you
> talk to somebody who works in the field, they are more
> certain than 90%.

Climate scientists who understood the system were 90% certain 20 years ago.

Another parallel is ozone depletion, where the initial scientists who
claimed CFCs would be a problem were pooh-pooh'd by nearly the same people
who are now scorning climate change. Of course, Rowland and Molina got the
Nobel for that work and everyone seems to forget that had people listened
and done something when they first sounded the alarm, the problem might not
be as large as it is today. On the other hand, CFCs turn out to be a great
tracer of deep-water formation in the ocean, a process that is highly
relevant to understanding climate change. Go figure.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The only reason you feel this way is that you have been subjected to a
> massive p.r. campaign specifically designed to create fear, uncertainty,
> and doubt in the scientific basis for the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is
> warming the planet and changing the climate.

I wonder if this is anything like the latest Yahoo! story from AP where they
talk about an Inuit who fell through the "melting" ice on his SNOWMOBILE and
was complaining that global warming was destroying his hunting grounds. No
one seemed to notice the irony of this clown blaming internal combustion
engines for his injuries while riding an internal combustion engine.

But here's the bottom line - there isn't anything near enough data to make
ANY claims about anthropogenic warming. The ONLY accurate data we have is
from the satellite scans that began in the 1970's. The USA and the European
records extend for a couple of hundred years only and the accuracy of them
are somewhat questionable but THEY show that the warming trend was already
occuring around 1600 - directly after the end of the little ice age.

By all means I suggest that you give up your car, your home heating and air
conditioning and your food supply. I will really feel a lot better about the
universe if you could do that for us.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Here's something else you can bank on, nothing will stop climate change at
> this point and there will always be a few lone voices that get far more
> media play than they deserve who will claim it would have happened anyway.

By all means explain to us WHAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED CLIMATE CHANGE say in the
70's when we were in a cooling trend?

> Why do you not believe the IPCC?

Because what the Summary says isn't what the scientific papers inside say?

 

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The only reason you feel this way is that you have been subjected to
>> a massive p.r. campaign specifically designed to create fear,
>> uncertainty, and doubt in the scientific basis for the theory that
>> anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet and changing the climate.
>
> I wonder if this is anything like the latest Yahoo! story from AP
> where they talk about an Inuit who fell through the "melting" ice on
> his SNOWMOBILE and was complaining that global warming was destroying
> his hunting grounds. No one seemed to notice the irony of this clown
> blaming internal combustion engines for his injuries while riding an
> internal combustion engine.
>
> But here's the bottom line - there isn't anything near enough data to
> make ANY claims about anthropogenic warming. The ONLY accurate data we
> have is from the satellite scans that began in the 1970's. The USA and
> the European records extend for a couple of hundred years only and the
> accuracy of them are somewhat questionable but THEY show that the
> warming trend was already occuring around 1600 - directly after the
> end of the little ice age.
>
> By all means I suggest that you give up your car, your home heating
> and air conditioning and your food supply. I will really feel a lot
> better about the universe if you could do that for us.

Tom, empty your colostomy bag, turn your pacemaker back on, and calm down.
I never once asked you, myself, or anyone to do anything about climate
change. You might as well sit on a lawn chair at Malibu and scream at the
tide not to come in (although, for all I know, you already do this so I
apologize if my silly metaphor has a basis in fact). I only asked you to
acknowledge that the science is correct. If you know for a fact that the
scientists are wrong, point me to some links to peer-reviewed publications
in major journals that have not been refuted by subsequent publications
showing that *any* of the major underlying science concerning anthropogenic
global warming is incorrect. I know that literature pretty well and I
don't think you can do it, but I miss things so maybe you know something I
don't. No, ha, what I mean is you know everything and I know nothing so
show me the hard facts so I can convince myself, as you have convinced
yourself, that guys like Ben Santer, Kevin Trenburth, Susan Solomon, Sherry
Rowlands, and Ram Ramanathan are wrong wrong wrong.

You could start here:

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/onglobalwarming.html

Ramanathan is not a balls-out greenie, he doesn't want to take away your
car. Show where he is wrong. Or point me to a paper in some major
scientific journal supporting the idea that warming of the globe, not just
Europe, occurred as far back as 1600.

--
Bill Asher

 

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Here's something else you can bank on, nothing will stop climate
>> change at this point and there will always be a few lone voices that
>> get far more media play than they deserve who will claim it would
>> have happened anyway.
>
> By all means explain to us WHAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED CLIMATE CHANGE say
> in the 70's when we were in a cooling trend?
>
>> Why do you not believe the IPCC?
>
> Because what the Summary says isn't what the scientific papers inside
> say?

The summmary is a synthesis of the science in the papers. See, in
something big like this, you never have the one "smoking gun" showing it is
correct. The theory is too big and there are a lot of sub-processes. So,
the scientific papers tend to address the minutia, like whether there is a
global radiative effect of SO2 through sulfate cloud condensation nucleii
(CCN). Then, someone might come along and look at sulfate emissions from
say 1940 through 2000 and notice the global distribution of SO2 emissions
started shifting westward from N. America to Eastern Asia, then someone
else puts that into a GCM and notices that if you move the SO2 from N.
America to China, which is what in fact happened, the cooling from the
sulfate aerosol goes down and global temperature begins to rise in the
model. Is this starting to sound familiar? But nowhere will you find a
paper claiming that the cooling observed in the 70's was because of CCN due
to SO2 emissions negating the positive forcing of CO2. But the IPCC goes
through all that and sorts out the relevant stuff and synthesizes it into a
coherent best-guess understanding of what is going on with climate. Most
importantly, the uncertainty in that best-guess understanding has
precipitously declined in the 20 years the IPCC has been doing this. They
have no vested interest in showing climate change is happening due to man's
activities and they could care less whether you grow your own grain
fertilizing it with **** from your septic tank, generate electricity by
using a generator you salvaged from a 1961 Falcon, and commute to work by
unicyle as opposed to living in Tampa and air-conditioning your uninsulated
house to 65 degrees year-round while driving 100 miles one-way in a full-
blown military HMMWV to your job at Exxon-Mobile.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Here's something else you can bank on, nothing will stop climate
>>> change at this point and there will always be a few lone voices that
>>> get far more media play than they deserve who will claim it would
>>> have happened anyway.
>>
>> By all means explain to us WHAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED CLIMATE CHANGE say
>> in the 70's when we were in a cooling trend?
>>
>>> Why do you not believe the IPCC?
>>
>> Because what the Summary says isn't what the scientific papers inside
>> say?
>
> The summmary is a synthesis of the science in the papers.

Just today I was riding with a newly retired member of the UCSF mathmatics
team who did the statistics for most of the cancer research in that system.

He has a friend who has written one of the papers for the 2007 IPCC. He said
that this guy claims that most of the papers in the report are very good
science and that very few of them do anything other than cite PROBABILITIES.
The summary ends up taking these and claiming that anthropogenic global
warming is 90% likely. That is far more than a stretch - it is an outright
false claim. (not even to mention that even then, in scientific terms, that
is UNLIKELY). The media and the "environmental movement" has then used that
claim to make their own announcements that NO REAL SCIENTIST BELIEVES
OTHERWISE and that WE MUST ACT NOW.

Don't pretend that isn't the position of MOST of the environmentalists
(read - morons making money from talking about warm fuzzy animals).

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> The only reason you feel this way is that you have been subjected to
>>> a massive p.r. campaign specifically designed to create fear,
>>> uncertainty, and doubt in the scientific basis for the theory that
>>> anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet and changing the climate.
>>
>> I wonder if this is anything like the latest Yahoo! story from AP
>> where they talk about an Inuit who fell through the "melting" ice on
>> his SNOWMOBILE and was complaining that global warming was destroying
>> his hunting grounds. No one seemed to notice the irony of this clown
>> blaming internal combustion engines for his injuries while riding an
>> internal combustion engine.
>>
>> But here's the bottom line - there isn't anything near enough data to
>> make ANY claims about anthropogenic warming. The ONLY accurate data we
>> have is from the satellite scans that began in the 1970's. The USA and
>> the European records extend for a couple of hundred years only and the
>> accuracy of them are somewhat questionable but THEY show that the
>> warming trend was already occuring around 1600 - directly after the
>> end of the little ice age.
>>
>> By all means I suggest that you give up your car, your home heating
>> and air conditioning and your food supply. I will really feel a lot
>> better about the universe if you could do that for us.
>
> Tom, empty your colostomy bag, turn your pacemaker back on, and calm down.

How about telling me that to my face you blowhard little *****?

> I never once asked you, myself, or anyone to do anything about climate
> change.

No, instead you've been sniveling about how we are so horrible and implying
that we should have starved ourselves, lived like paupers and never
developed a civilizations that has fed the world and kept fascism and
communism at bay for 100 years.

The fact is that you're a disgusting little pissant incapable of respecting
anything and anyone. Instead you pretend to knowledge and hauty demeanor,
but we both know that in person you're a worm.

 

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> Just today I was riding with a newly retired member of the UCSF
> mathmatics team who did the statistics for most of the cancer research
> in that system.
>
> He has a friend who has written one of the papers for the 2007 IPCC.
> He said that this guy claims that most of the papers in the report are
> very good science and that very few of them do anything other than
> cite PROBABILITIES. The summary ends up taking these and claiming that
> anthropogenic global warming is 90% likely. That is far more than a
> stretch - it is an outright false claim. (not even to mention that
> even then, in scientific terms, that is UNLIKELY). The media and the
> "environmental movement" has then used that claim to make their own
> announcements that NO REAL SCIENTIST BELIEVES OTHERWISE and that WE
> MUST ACT NOW.
>
> Don't pretend that isn't the position of MOST of the environmentalists
> (read - morons making money from talking about warm fuzzy animals).

A lot of environmentalists are morons. Most climate scientists are very
smart people who have spent lifetimes understanding this. They are
genuinely concerned that we are reaching the tipping point for climate.
Either your friend's friend was being quoted out of context or he doesn't
understand what the IPCC reports represent. It is a scientific synthesis
of disparate results, most of which were written up outside of the context
of anthropogenic climate change.

It is for that reason I've never seen a statement of likelihood in any of
the climate papers I have read ever assessing a probability that the effect
described shows that the global warming is anthropogenic in origin. Maybe
that's because I read a lot of detailed process papers that have nothing to
do per se with global warming. They mainly address issues like whether
there are weird correlations in temperature and CO2 records, what are the
possible mechanisms by which volcanoes impact climate, whether you can
estimate breaking waves from satellites, whether the dependence of the gas
transfer velocity on wind speed is quadratic or cubic etc. etc. None of
these papers estimate the probability that the results show the observed
increase in temperature are anthropogenic in origin. But taken together,
the body of evidence is compelling because each little conclusion is a
brick in the wall of science. If you get enough conclusions cemented
together, then you have a pretty big wall.

Let me give you an example, suppose you wanted to argue that particular
phases of ENSO, either El Nino or La Nina, are what is driving the observed
increase of atmospheric CO2. In other words, the reason atmospheric CO2 is
increasing is that the ocean is ventilating its stored CO2 (you can
calculate the air-sea CO2 flux as the product of the gas transfer velocity
and the concentration difference of CO2 across the air-sea boundary), not
that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. So you propose that this
is what is going on in an open forum. But the people who do global CO2
uptake know that the people who measure CO2 concentrations in the ocean
have not found huge changes in surface CO2 concentrations during any phase
of the ENSO cycle. So they cry out that what you are proposing can't be
true. So you then argue that although the surface CO2 concentrations are
the same over an ENSO cycle, the gas transfer velocity is different and
that is why the atmosphere is getting CO2 from the oceans. But now the gas
transfer people pipe up and say that they've looked at global wind fields
for El Nino and La Nina and they don't see any large differences so the
transfer velocities are likely very similar so it is likely the flux isn't
that much larger during La Nina as it is in El Nino (and in fact, what has
been demonstrated is the El Nino *decreases* atmospheric CO2 because it
caps off the upwelling in the Easter Equatorial Pacific). So the
conclusion is that ENSO can't be responsible for the increase of
atmospheric CO2 because what is understood both about the way the ocean
behaves, and about the microscale processes that must be involved, say it
can't be responsible. But none of those microscale papers on gas transfer
and CO2 chemistry or the "macroscale" papers on ocean circulation and
surface CO2 distributions would have anything in them discussing their
relevance to climate change.

Individual process scientists can't do this synthesis by themselves, the
system is too large and contains too many pieces, but I am confident the
IPCC can.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Nev Shea]

William Asher <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> You might as well sit on a lawn chair at Malibu and
> scream at the tide not to come in (although, for all I know, you
> already do this so I apologize if my silly metaphor has a basis in
> fact). I only asked you to acknowledge that the science is correct.

It seems ironic to me that you mock the notion of screaming at the tide not
to come in while asking Kunich to acknowledge that the science is correct.

NS

 

[Fred Fredburger]

ST wrote:
> On 2/28/07 5:53 PM, in article [email protected], "Raptor"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "Raptor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Stu Fleming wrote:
>>>>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR20070226
>>>>>> 00733.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Timothy Gardner
>>>>>> Reuters
>>>>>> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
>>>>>> regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
>>>>>> linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
>>>>>> Oregon's governor.
>>>>> Unconstitional.
>>>> Like Shrub gives a **** about the Constitution.
>>> I'd be willing to bet that you've never actually read the Constitution
>>> yourself.
>> You must have some extra laying around then.
>>
>> --
>> Lynn Wallace
>>
>> If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
>> speaking German now.
>
> If Bush fought terrorism like FDR fought the Japanese (Interned them all in
> a prison camp)
>
> We'd all be ????? <--insert favorite liberal talking point here..
>

The problem with Evangelical Republicans lately is that ANYTHING they do
is justified if they can think of someone, somewhere, sometime who did
something arguably worse. For example: Abu Ghraib was just dandy when
you consider what Saddam Hussein did in that prison.

Since Saddam Hussein was no paragon of morality, comparing us to him is
setting the bar very low.

Similarly, if one were to search for former presidents who held the
constitution in low regard, Roosevelt would be second on the list.
Lincoln being number 1.

This is sort of a "no President left behind" mentality.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> The fact is that you're a disgusting little pissant incapable of respecting
> anything and anyone. Instead you pretend to knowledge and hauty demeanor,
> but we both know that in person you're a worm.

And here we have a fine example of the incredible disconnect from reality that you
have, Tom. What you mean here is that you hate the fact that someone isn't showing
what you believe to be the proper levels of respect to *you*. You plainly believe that
you have more knowledge than any- and everyone else in here. Sadly, no. If you want
"haughty" try looking at your own posts. The five months you were off festering in
some warm, dark place were great for this group; the same cannot be said for what it
did to your personality. I don't suppose you noticed the difference in the greetings
you got on your return compared to what Curtis got. Perhaps that would tell you
something, but I doubt it would register.

So tell us, Tom. What's the name of this French Nobel laureate you spoke to? You
know the longer you dodge that one the more you look to be a liar. Of course, that's
just the tip of *that* iceberg.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Nev Shea wrote:
> William Asher <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> You might as well sit on a lawn chair at Malibu and
>> scream at the tide not to come in (although, for all I know, you
>> already do this so I apologize if my silly metaphor has a basis in
>> fact). I only asked you to acknowledge that the science is correct.
>
> It seems ironic to me that you mock the notion of screaming at the tide not
> to come in while asking Kunich to acknowledge that the science is correct.

Did he ever acknowledge that Iraq had no WMD's?

I acknowledge that I lose interest in these threads long before they
peter out, so I may have missed something.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nev Shea wrote:
> > William Asher <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> You might as well sit on a lawn chair at Malibu and
> >> scream at the tide not to come in (although, for all I know, you
> >> already do this so I apologize if my silly metaphor has a basis in
> >> fact). I only asked you to acknowledge that the science is correct.
> >
> > It seems ironic to me that you mock the notion of screaming at the tide not
> > to come in while asking Kunich to acknowledge that the science is correct.
>
> Did he ever acknowledge that Iraq had no WMD's?

No, he keeps bloviating about "did you read the Duelfer Report" like it's a magic
wand that proves him right. Unfortunately, it doesn't say what he likes to imply it
does.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?