Stolen honor.
 

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:59:41 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


China will become more and more capitalistic and a partner to many in a
global economy. They can't go back now because too many of her people
have tasted the fruits of limited freedom and relative financial
prosperity. They may be underpaid and have poor working conditions when
compared to western standards, but to many Chinese it represents the
first opportunity at making financial progress in their lifetime.

It's going to be an interesting experiment, but there are pitfalls. I'm
not sure these Chinese are making financial progress.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6752507.stm

Stolen honor.
 

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:05:11 -0500, hk wrote:

Tim wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:17�am, HK wrote:
BillP wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:14:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Please note how many of these fine scientists were members of the IPCC
panel and disagreed with it's conclusions.
Some have had to sue, or threaten to sue, to have their names removed from
the report.
Amazing how almost everyone in denial about our contribution to "global
warming" spouts the same right-wing crapola. Obviously science denial is
a right-wing kind of thing.

Harry, I've notived that it sems to me that any comment that you may
disagree with, you tend to lable as "right-wing". Which is neither
true, nor necessary.


Almost everyone who denies science is on the right.

Harry, why did you go from HK to hk? Are you striving to be more anonymous,
or just to sway the statistics?
--
John H

Stolen honor.
 

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:34:16 -0500, Reginald Smithers III
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


By the way, denunciation of any group or principle is "hate speech" -
which I'm sure you would never participate in.

SWS,
Nice to meet you, are you new to the group?

LMAO, truthfully. That was funny!
--
John H

Stolen honor.
 

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:53:47 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:05:11 -0500, hk wrote:

Tim wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:17�am, HK wrote:
BillP wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:14:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Please note how many of these fine scientists were members of the IPCC
panel and disagreed with it's conclusions.
Some have had to sue, or threaten to sue, to have their names removed from
the report.
Amazing how almost everyone in denial about our contribution to "global
warming" spouts the same right-wing crapola. Obviously science denial is
a right-wing kind of thing.
Harry, I've notived that it sems to me that any comment that you may
disagree with, you tend to lable as "right-wing". Which is neither
true, nor necessary.
Almost everyone who denies science is on the right.

Let me see - real scientists who are in serious doubt aren't really
scientists? Put another way - your assertion is that all those real
scientists who are advising caution and presenting evidence that
directly refutes the current global warming hysteria are right wing
extremists? You know - those guys who invented the science?

Including those on the IPCC who are now running as far and as fast as
they can from the IPCC report? Or those who were deliberately
misquoted by Al Gore and the IPCC panel?

Come on Harry - get informed, just don't follow along with the
rhetoric and disinformation campaign led by the Goracle.

Remember - the first and most important propaganda principle is for a
problem to be perceived - as in propaganda evoking audience interest
transmitted through attention-getting communications.

And as I'm sure you know, being a Union type, the second most
important principle of propaganda is that it must offer some form of
action or diversion, or both.

"An Inconvenient Truth" comes immediately to mind as fitting both of
those important criteria.

I would suggest that instead of immediately demonizing the "right",
you might actually want to figure out why it is that some of these
very real and very important scientists are saying what they are
saying.

By the way, denunciation of any group or principle is "hate speech" -
which I'm sure you would never participate in.


Almost everyone who denies science is on the right. Check it out. Count
'em up. It's not just this issue.

One must wonder about your definition of 'science'. If you define it as
"crap spewed by Algore and Mikemoore, then your statement is probably
correct, and with reason.
--
John H

Stolen honor.
 

On Nov 24, 8:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:24:31 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

" JimH" ask wrote in message
.. .

"D.Duck" wrote in message
om...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

snip

Now go eat some turkey and enjoy the afternoon.

Forget to mention, one roasting in the oven and one going in the fryer in
two hours.

Enjoy, whichever way you like it.

Did your house burn down yet? ;-)

I really don't think it's funny. If you watch what you're doing there isn't
any problem. I've done many foods in the fryer and never had a problem.

"JimH" or is it " JimH" feels he must put down anything he isn't able to
do for lack of resources or abilities. Pay him no heed.

I've one question about the fryer. What do you do with the oil afterwards?
Can it be stored in the pot, or what? I've never tried it, being happy with
smoked and rotisseried, but it sounds good.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can run it through cheesecloth and store it for a couple of more
turkeys if you don't burn it to hot...Then eventually you need to have
it picked up by the local recycler.. Turkey frying is an expensive way
to eat turkey.

Stolen honor.
 

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:34:16 -0500, Reginald Smithers III
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

By the way, denunciation of any group or principle is "hate speech" -
which I'm sure you would never participate in.
SWS,
Nice to meet you, are you new to the group?

LMAO, truthfully. That was funny!

Are you talking about SWS's comment? ;)

Stolen honor.
 

Stolen honor.
 

On Nov 24, 10:40�am, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:26:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Yes Larry, an American soldier raped a girl.

With the lowering of the standards the army has had to do, this
doesn't surprise me. That scumbag would have been raping an American
girl if he wasn't in Iraq.

That type of conduct has been around since there were armies.

Not good, but nothing new.

Stolen honor.
 

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:22:58 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:58:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Almost everyone who denies science is on the right. Check it out. Count
'em up. It's not just this issue.


Tom's representative list of scientists are "denying" science?

It will be interesting so see what happens over the next 5-10 years. From
what I've read on the subject even the most ardent advocates of mankind
being responsible for a global warming trend agree that it can't be reversed
in that short of a time frame.

My hunch is that in about 5 years new data will cause the whole debate to go
away, only to be replaced by a growing concern of a coming mini Ice Age
cycle.

Remember all the dire predictions of Y2K?

Eisboch


I do not doubt that the climate is changing. I would even believe man
is responsible for some of the changes. The real question is if
changing the trend is as simple as cutting our discretionary CO2
emissions. If you look at the Scientiofic American article from last
year about the effect of agriculture on climate they peg the
beginnings of the warming trend 8,000 years ago when man first started
clearing land and planting crops. It is very clear that farming
increases CO2 above leaving native vegetation, if for no other reason,
we "clear cut" the field once or twice a year.
When you plot "global warming" it tracks world population as closely
as any other number.
With that in mind it is disturbiung that we are exempting Asia and
Africa from all these agreements. Those are the areas of the world
that are going to triple their populations in the next 40 years while
the west is projected to have a fairly flat population.
I suppose if we make the penalties against the western economies
strong enough (and crash them) the resulting nuclear war will reverse
the warming trend and cut way back on that pesky population growth.

The disturbing thing about this whole thing is some people have
invented a tax, brokered by venture capital firms to trade "carbon
credits". That instantly takes a non existant commidity and makes it
money. Some people are going to get very rich on a scheme that may be
totally meaningless and the cult religion of environmentalism is
driving that market.

Some have already started making money. Algore made a bunch from his scifi
thriller. The selling of so called 'carbon credits' is big business getting
bigger. A study on carbon funds provides some interesting reading.


http://www.icfi.com/newsroom/news.asp?ID=60

A couple quotes:

"“The newest funds entering the market are designed to generate cash
returns for investors rather than carbon credits for compliance purposes."

"In our view, so far only a few vehicles disclose adequate information on
their operational and financial performance."
--
John H

Stolen honor.
 

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:09:32 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Biting their noses to spite their faces.

Yup. It's a catch 22. I suppose you could impose high tariffs on
imported products but that opens up another can of worms. Meanwhile, the
Chinese factory worker is delighting in his and his country's newfound
economic success, very happy to be working for compensation and in
conditions that we consider slavery.

Eisboch


Harry .... just thought of something that would keep you busy for a couple
of decades.

Go unionize China.

Eisboch




It would be more fun to see all the multi-national corporationists and
Wall Streeters rounded up and shot.

Profound, Harry.

Multi-national corporations should be done away with. You are so
enlightening, Harry.
--
John H