TK was exactly right. OT



In article
<32114099-7edf-4404-8888-5a04e90bda2d@z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 9:28 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 23, 10:01 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jun 23, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > > > A few things that have me perplexed:
> >
> > > > > 1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
> > > > > 2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
> > > > > warming from the previous century
> > > > > 3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
> > > > > cool
> > > > > 4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
> > > > > activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
> > > > > levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
> >
> > > > Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't looked at
> > > > the data:
> >
> > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/hadsst2gl.pnghttp://anonymous.co...
> >
> > > Very pretty charts.  I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
> > > degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
> > > that it's not surface temps that matter.  Oh, wait... you're trotting
> > > out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
> > > data.
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
> > give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
> > showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
> > degree celsius warmer than a century ago.
> >
> > Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
> > years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.
> >
> > Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
> > cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
> > warming has continued since then.
> >
> > Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
> > perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
> > or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
> > shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
> > say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
> > to solar activity.
> >
> > No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.
>
> Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.

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

--
Michael Press
 
In article
<31ab76d3-c31a-4123-926a-f4585e1990a5@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

--
Michael Press
 
On Jun 25, 12:38 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> > >  Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> > More fringe:
> > http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_6....

[snip]

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

Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?
 
On Jun 25, 12:56 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> I know you know exactly what I was saying.

Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
"... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
easily have been speaking about you.
 
On Jun 25, 4:04 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 12:38 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >  Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> > > More fringe:
> > >http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_6....
>
> [snip]
>
> >  Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
> > of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a shitload
> > of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
> > it.
>
> Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
> and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?

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

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

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

--
Michael Press
 
On Jun 25, 11:51 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <32114099-7edf-4404-8888-5a04e90bd...@z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 9:28 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 10:01 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 23, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > A few things that have me perplexed:
>
> > > > > > 1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
> > > > > > 2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
> > > > > > warming from the previous century
> > > > > > 3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
> > > > > > cool
> > > > > > 4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
> > > > > > activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
> > > > > > levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
>
> > > > > Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't lookedat
> > > > > the data:
>
> > > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/hadsst2gl.pnghttp://anonymous..co...
>
> > > > Very pretty charts.  I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
> > > > degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
> > > > that it's not surface temps that matter.  Oh, wait... you're trotting
> > > > out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
> > > > data.
>
> > > Hmmm.
>
> > > You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
> > > give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
> > > showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
> > > degree celsius warmer than a century ago.
>
> > > Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
> > > years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.
>
> > > Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
> > > cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
> > > warming has continued since then.
>
> > > Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
> > > perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
> > > or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
> > > shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
> > > say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
> > > to solar activity.
>
> > > No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.
>
> > Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
>
> There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
>
> --
> Michael Press

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

Oh yeah, and the "psycho" thing? You were played... like a
violin. ;-)
-Paul
 
On Jun 25, 12:09 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 11:51 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
>
> Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
> unpleasant might be called denial:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

I'll have to try that with those fat "estimated quarterly taxes"
envelopes the IRS sends me every year...
-Paul
 
On Jun 25, 3:55 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>  Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 25, 12:56 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I know you know exactly what I was saying.
>
> > Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
> > Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
> > "... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
> > easily have been speaking about you.
>
> You are getting further and further from what I said,
> and what I replied to, and the meaning.
>
> --
> Michael Press

You mean "the meaninglessness", right?
-Paul
 
In article <b0ed283d-92b2-4b96-a9bb-f84e1bef8f1c@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 25, 12:09 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 11:51 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
> >
> > Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
> > unpleasant might be called denial:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html
>
> I'll have to try that with those fat "estimated quarterly taxes"
> envelopes the IRS sends me every year...

I think you'll find that the government does not work on a "if it's good enough
for us, it's good enough for you" basis.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <2c863404-6ea2-4c95-b84b-627a65ad1a17@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >  Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> More fringe:
> http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf

Scalia's response to that report:

http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <2c863404-6ea2-4c95-b84b-627a65ad1a17@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >  Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
> >
> > More fringe:
> > http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pd
> > f
>
> Scalia's response to that report:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg

You gotta admit, as debunkings of urban legends go, "it was only
twelve!" is pretty lame.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
 
On Jun 25, 11:51 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>  "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.
>
> > Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
>
> There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
>

Anyone can doubt. Doubting is easy. Proving the
doubt is well founded actually requires work.

A friend of mine is working with someone else's grad
student, and the grad student is intelligent, but every
time she tells him what he needs to do, he says "I'm not
convinced that's the right way to do it," and then sits
there waiting for her to convince him. It's all very
Socratic to say that in fact she should be able to convince
him that the way three professors and two postdocs
want him to reduce the data is the right way. But in
practice, she doesn't want to work for a week every time
he needs to be convinced that a well-understood procedure
is correct. So he goes off and does his own thing,
screws up, and weeks later comes back and maybe does it
the way it should have been done in the first place.
After a few iterations of this, she just wanted to strangle
the kid with his Ethernet cable.

Sometimes gnomic utterances aren't a sign of deep
understanding of underlying complexity, after all.
Maybe Yoda was full of ****.

Ben
 
On Jun 26, 12:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Jun 25, 11:51 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.
>
> > > Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
>
> > There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
>
> Anyone can doubt. Doubting is easy. Proving the
> doubt is well founded actually requires work.
>
> A friend of mine is working with someone else's grad
> student, and the grad student is intelligent, but every
> time she tells him what he needs to do, he says "I'm not
> convinced that's the right way to do it," and then sits
> there waiting for her to convince him.

Sounds like Bartleby the Scrivener. http://www.bartleby.com/129/

R
 
In article <rcousine-82A989.21252325062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <2c863404-6ea2-4c95-b84b-627a65ad1a17@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
> > >
> > > More fringe:
> > > http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.
> > > pd
> > > f
> >
> > Scalia's response to that report:
> >
> > http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg
>
> You gotta admit, as debunkings of urban legends go, "it was only
> twelve!" is pretty lame.

If that was what it actually said it would be pretty weak. But since Scalia put
the number at 30, and the report stated that, "At most 12, not 30, detainees
³returned to the fight.²"

Furthermore, it states, "Of these 12, it is by no means clear that all are
properly characterized as having been so engaged since their release."

In other words, it's questionable even of them.

Significantly: "According to the Department of Defense¹s published and unpublished
data and reports, not a single released Guantánamo detainee has ever attacked any
Americans."

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Jun 25, 9:25 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>  Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <2c863404-6ea2-4c95-b84b-627a65ad1...@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >  Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> > > More fringe:
> > >http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_6....
> > > f
>
> >    Scalia's response to that report:
>
> >http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg
>
> You gotta admit, as debunkings of urban legends go, "it was only
> twelve!" is pretty lame.

That kind of thinking leads inexorably to the conclusion that we
should never let anyone out of any prison, and of course it helps
distract everyone from the much more significant fact that this fiasco
has ****** off millions of people around the world. That will have
repercussions for the rest of our lives.
-Paul
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Sometimes gnomic utterances aren't a sign of deep understanding of
> underlying complexity, after all. Maybe Yoda was full of ****.

****, the force is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

articlebot
"Longest Day" was exactly that (Poughkeepsie Journal)
Replies
0
Views
545
Cycling News Headlines
articlebot
articlebot
sars
My dream bike if money was no object: Share yours!
Replies
11
Views
66
Bike buying advice
Whale
Whale
denchikchyb
What was the last thing you ate?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Bike Cafe
borntoride
borntoride
sgunko902
What was the last thing you ate?
Replies
1
Views
835
Bike Cafe
denchikchyb
denchikchyb
Germanrazor
It was time.....
Replies
12
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
amrgardner
amrgardner
Mr. Beanz
What was that all about?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
fletch68
fletch68
D
My custom hand bike was stolen!
Replies
0
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Disablednotdead
D
Kakashi
What was the last thing you've bought for your bike?
Replies
91
Views
8K
Bike Cafe
Mr. Beanz
Mr. Beanz
Kakashi
When was your last crash?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Mountain Bikes
LOUIE_CARRILLO
LOUIE_CARRILLO
Kakashi
When was the last time you had a flat?
Replies
20
Views
3K
Mountain Bikes
Froze
Froze
Top Bottom Back