have in common?

"By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic
fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing
political larceny here on a truly planetary scale."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anthrop...ud-in-history/

Facts debunk the myths:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...017272,00.html

--

Math illiteracy affects 8 out of every 5 people.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
have in common?

"By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic
fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing
political larceny here on a truly planetary scale."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anthrop...ud-in-history/

Facts debunk the myths:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...017272,00.html



You are sooooooo unconvincing. What I cannot figure out is what is
motivating the righties to fight so hard against ways to lessen man's
impact on the environment.

"HK" wrote in message
...
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
have in common?

"By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic
fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing
political larceny here on a truly planetary scale."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anthrop...ud-in-history/

Facts debunk the myths:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...017272,00.html



You are sooooooo unconvincing. What I cannot figure out is what is
motivating the righties to fight so hard against ways to lessen man's
impact on the environment.


I don't think anyone is against protecting the environment.
What many are against is reactionary, knee-jerk over-responses to
"problems"
that doesn't exist in the qualified opinion of many experts.

The calls to action often cause more problems than the initial concern.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
have in common?

"By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic
fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing
political larceny here on a truly planetary scale."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anthrop...ud-in-history/


Facts debunk the myths:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...017272,00.html




You are sooooooo unconvincing. What I cannot figure out is what is
motivating the righties to fight so hard against ways to lessen man's
impact on the environment.


I don't think anyone is against protecting the environment.
What many are against is reactionary, knee-jerk over-responses to
"problems"
that doesn't exist in the qualified opinion of many experts.

The calls to action often cause more problems than the initial concern.

Eisboch


That's the gentleman's response. My guess is that many on the right who
are protesting the loudest simply don't want anything to interfere with
their "enjoyment" even if it means further despoiling of the environment.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:10:51 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


I don't think anyone is against protecting the environment. What many
are against is reactionary, knee-jerk over-responses to "problems"
that doesn't exist in the qualified opinion of many experts.

Putting aside "climate change", there are quite a few who are against
protecting the environment if it costs them a dime. There was a recent
executive order allowing mine tailings to pollute streams. There is no
disputing the pollution is real, and damaging, yet ...

On Jan 30, 8:10*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...





Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
have in common?

"By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic
fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing
political larceny here on a truly planetary scale."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anthrop...ng-the-greates....

Facts debunk the myths:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...4655-5017272,0....

You are sooooooo unconvincing. What I cannot figure out is what is
motivating the righties to fight so hard against ways to lessen man's
impact on the environment.

I don't think anyone is against protecting the environment.
What many are against is reactionary, knee-jerk over-responses to
"problems"
that doesn't exist in the qualified opinion of many experts.

The calls to action often cause more problems than the initial concern.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Those in the know are no worried about the arctic ice melt because
it's a risk to national security. The arctic ice was a nice buffer
between us and potential harm.

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
have in common?

"By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic
fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing
political larceny here on a truly planetary scale."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anthrop...ud-in-history/

Facts debunk the myths:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...017272,00.html



You are sooooooo unconvincing. What I cannot figure out is what is
motivating the righties to fight so hard against ways to lessen man's
impact on the environment.


I don't think anyone is against protecting the environment.
What many are against is reactionary, knee-jerk over-responses to
"problems"
that doesn't exist in the qualified opinion of many experts.

The calls to action often cause more problems than the initial concern.

Eisboch


That's the gentleman's response. My guess is that many on the right who
are protesting the loudest simply don't want anything to interfere with
their "enjoyment" even if it means further despoiling of the environment.



You have a right to your guess.

Doesn't mean you are correct though. The thing that gets me about these
highly controversial and debatable subjects is that often those on the
"left" become as zealous in pushing their beliefs as they accuse the "right"
of being uncaring. The zealousness is often supported with insults,
name-calling and general bashing of anyone who doesn't subscribe to the
lefties' POV.

As a moderate "righty", the only thing I am zealous about is finding a way
to avoid our slippery slope ride towards Socialism.

Eisboch

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:34:50 -0500, HK wrote:

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
have in common?

"By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic
fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing
political larceny here on a truly planetary scale."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anthrop...ud-in-history/

Facts debunk the myths:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...017272,00.html

You are sooooooo unconvincing. What I cannot figure out is what is
motivating the righties to fight so hard against ways to lessen man's
impact on the environment.

It's not a question of lessing the impact or cleaning the air or
pollution control. I'm not against any of that - in fact I'm pro
environment and when I was Vice-Chairman of the town's Planning and
Zoning board and Chairman of the Conservation Commission, I was a
royal pain-in-the-ass to developers. I wasn't anti-development
either, but I made sure they had their ducks in a row and that the
impact to the local eco systems were either zero or minimalized.

It's a question of pawning off bogus science as "settled". It's a
giant trade system built to benefit a few - including Al Gore who has
made millions trading carbon credits based on dubious statistical
methodology which cheerfully ignores historical trends plus solar
science while supporting flat out statistical lying and the
ostrasizing scientists who dare question the "settled" science.

The gist of the articles, which you obviously didn't read, is that
good science is posing questions and poking/prodding data to find
flaws, questions assumptions and test theories. Climate change
science, as currently practiced, isn't good science.

Are there changes in climate - sure there are. The question is what
is causing it and the more closely the "settled science" is examined,
it's becoming more evident that it's base assumption of
anthropomorphic changes made by man are false.

A good example is the recent contretemps over the "cow" tax - that cow
farts area major component of "global warming".

Here's a fact for you - there were more buffalo running around the
Great Plains of the US than the entire dairy and beef industry herds
currently in production. Buffalos fart too.

Think about it instead of blaming "righties" for not being politically
correct.

--

"Never fight an inanimate object."

P.J. O'Rourke

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:30:07 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:10:51 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


I don't think anyone is against protecting the environment. What many
are against is reactionary, knee-jerk over-responses to "problems"
that doesn't exist in the qualified opinion of many experts.

Putting aside "climate change", there are quite a few who are against
protecting the environment if it costs them a dime. There was a recent
executive order allowing mine tailings to pollute streams. There is no
disputing the pollution is real, and damaging, yet ...

I totally agree with you on this, but let's not confuse pollution with
global warming.

--

Chaos! Panic! Disaster! (My work here is done)

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...


Speaking of climate change .....

At what point does local weather patterns and trends shift into climate
patterns and trends?

I just want to know if the 7 foot piles of white crap piled up all over my
yard is due to weather or climate change.

Eisboch