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.

"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 08:33:01 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


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

Eisboch

Then you must be enjoying our new banking system.

HK wrote:
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.

I am completely for protecting the environment, as I enjoy getting out
in the woods even when it is zero. The snow makes every thing very
pretty. In the summer I also enjoy the woods and sailing.

I also read a lot of history and realize that any changes in the climate
are just the cyclic variations that have been going on for thousands of
years. It has been hotter in the past and will be colder in the future.

It is ironic that National Geographic which pushes global warming has an
article on Nansen which show the arctic ice receded as far back then as
it is today. That was over 110 years ago. Believe it or not they ignore
that fact.

A thousand years ago the Viking were taking ships much further north
than we can go today. There have been in more recent times when there
was no summer, as it snow even in July and August the summer months.

I know the hockey stick graphs of the temperatures of the pass ten
thousands of years are not accepted by popular opinion today, but a
significant temperature drop would have far greater consequences to our
culture than a rise. Can you imagine an economy dependent on corn and
windmills for energy if the average temperature drop 10 degrees? I
doubt if those windmill blades could stand 2 inches of ice.

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 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)

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:41:11 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

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.

Would you trust people who are willing to allow mining pollution when
they tell you global warming is a crock?

Most moderates agree that something is happening with global weather
patterns and there's evidence of a shift, and man *may* have a hand in
it.

If it's a natural occurrence and our habits have potential to be the
tipping point, don't you think we should do what we can to help?

Understood that we don't know what the tipping point is but it seems
like folly to sit on our hands, insisting it has nothing to do with
us.