| |
Main
Date: 19 Jun 2007 00:15:23
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf
"Conclusion
As a result of our analysis of Hansen's testimony, we find very little
evidence to justify his policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls
a "dangerous climate change," but we find significant evidence for an
impending world food supply-and-demand problem that may well prove even more
devastating to the biosphere - including both humanity and "wild nature" -
than what Hansen contends will occur in response to business-as-usual
anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A complication introduced by this more recently
recognized problem is that its solution would appear to involve our not
allowing human-induced CO2 emissions to be restricted, which is just the
opposite of what Hansen's policy prescriptions encourage. Clearly, the
several interrelated aspects of this many-faceted conundrum demonstrate that
it is vastly more complex than how Hansen has characterized it in his
testimony and, therefore, that its solution is likely not to be found in the
policies he prescribes."
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Jun 2007 10:57:56
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 22, 9:48 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Climate change is scary, nobody really wants to know that the lifestyle
> they know and love is a huge global problem.
Potential changes in the weather aren't nearly as scary as the
reaction of people to it.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jun 2007 10:57:42
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 22, 9:48 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Climate change is scary, nobody really wants to know that the lifestyle
> they know and love is a huge global problem.
Potential changes in the weather aren't nearly as scary as the
reaction of people to it.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jun 2007 00:43:24
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 24, 11:05 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice > wrote:
> Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who are not
> convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2
> problem, we are not out of the woods.
Oh, absolutely. But even if GHGs aren't the biggest driver, they're
the ones over which we have some control. It is currently thought that
genetic contributions to certain cancers and certain forms of heart
disease dominate contributions from individual behavior -- but we
can't do anything (yet) about the genetic component, while we can do
something about smoking, diet, exercise, and other behaviors. Even if
you do all of those things you're not out of the woods with respect to
cancer or heart disease, but it would be myopic to think that because
they're not the biggest driver they're not worth doing.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jun 2007 16:39:55
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
wrote:
> On Jun 24, 11:05 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
>> Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who are not
>> convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2
>> problem, we are not out of the woods.
>
> Oh, absolutely. But even if GHGs aren't the biggest driver, they're
> the ones over which we have some control. It is currently thought that
> genetic contributions to certain cancers and certain forms of heart
> disease dominate contributions from individual behavior -- but we
> can't do anything (yet) about the genetic component, while we can do
> something about smoking, diet, exercise, and other behaviors. Even if
> you do all of those things you're not out of the woods with respect to
> cancer or heart disease, but it would be myopic to think that because
> they're not the biggest driver they're not worth doing.
That statement is somewhat obfuscatory and a great example of FUD. I think
a better way to state this proposition is that it is clear that on long
time scales, CO2 is a very good amplifier, although perhaps not the
trigger, of global climate change. However, when we are talking about the
global warming observed over the last 20 years, that is almost entirely due
to CO2 and reducing atmospheric levels would help a great deal.
The intersection of the set of people who really understand climate
dynamics and the set of people who believe the late 20th century warming is
not due to anthropogenic CO2 is a very small set. Hence the near unamimous
opinion voiced by the IPCC.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Jun 2007 01:34:33
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
In article <Xns995A6250874B1FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 11:05 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> >
> >> Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who are not
> >> convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2
> >> problem, we are not out of the woods.
> >
> > Oh, absolutely. But even if GHGs aren't the biggest driver, they're
> > the ones over which we have some control. It is currently thought that
> > genetic contributions to certain cancers and certain forms of heart
> > disease dominate contributions from individual behavior -- but we
> > can't do anything (yet) about the genetic component, while we can do
> > something about smoking, diet, exercise, and other behaviors. Even if
> > you do all of those things you're not out of the woods with respect to
> > cancer or heart disease, but it would be myopic to think that because
> > they're not the biggest driver they're not worth doing.
>
> That statement is somewhat obfuscatory and a great example of FUD. I think
> a better way to state this proposition is that it is clear that on long
> time scales, CO2 is a very good amplifier, although perhaps not the
> trigger, of global climate change. However, when we are talking about the
> global warming observed over the last 20 years, that is almost entirely due
> to CO2 and reducing atmospheric levels would help a great deal.
>
> The intersection of the set of people who really understand climate
> dynamics and the set of people who believe the late 20th century warming is
> not due to anthropogenic CO2 is a very small set. Hence the near unamimous
> opinion voiced by the IPCC.
I think that nobody understands climate.
Opinion of the IPCC is only opinion, and nothing more. .
The man-made CO2 fad is a political boondoggle of epic size.
It is purpose made to extract money from you.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Jun 2007 08:10:50
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-19407D.18343425062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <Xns995A6250874B1FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>,
> William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 24, 11:05 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who
>> >> are not
>> >> convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2
>> >> problem, we are not out of the woods.
>> >
>> > Oh, absolutely. But even if GHGs aren't the biggest driver, they're
>> > the ones over which we have some control. It is currently thought
>> > that
>> > genetic contributions to certain cancers and certain forms of heart
>> > disease dominate contributions from individual behavior -- but we
>> > can't do anything (yet) about the genetic component, while we can
>> > do
>> > something about smoking, diet, exercise, and other behaviors. Even
>> > if
>> > you do all of those things you're not out of the woods with respect
>> > to
>> > cancer or heart disease, but it would be myopic to think that
>> > because
>> > they're not the biggest driver they're not worth doing.
>>
>> That statement is somewhat obfuscatory and a great example of FUD. I
>> think
>> a better way to state this proposition is that it is clear that on
>> long
>> time scales, CO2 is a very good amplifier, although perhaps not the
>> trigger, of global climate change. However, when we are talking
>> about the
>> global warming observed over the last 20 years, that is almost
>> entirely due
>> to CO2 and reducing atmospheric levels would help a great deal.
>>
>> The intersection of the set of people who really understand climate
>> dynamics and the set of people who believe the late 20th century
>> warming is
>> not due to anthropogenic CO2 is a very small set. Hence the near
>> unamimous
>> opinion voiced by the IPCC.
>
> I think that nobody understands climate.
> Opinion of the IPCC is only opinion, and nothing more. .
> The man-made CO2 fad is a political boondoggle of epic size.
> It is purpose made to extract money from you.
>
I don't know about extracting money, but it certainly is about power and
control. While it makes a lot of sense for society to be much more
efficient with its energy consumption, there'll be a lot of "you can pry
my gas guzzling SUV from my dead cold fingers". Whatever...............
the future potential for bicycles is bright.
Phil H
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Jun 2007 17:55:07
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> I don't know about extracting money, but it certainly is about power and
> control. While it makes a lot of sense for society to be much more
> efficient with its energy consumption, there'll be a lot of "you can pry
> my gas guzzling SUV from my dead cold fingers". Whatever...............
> the future potential for bicycles is bright.
You could outsource taking out gas guzzling SUV's to Iraqi insurgents.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 23:37:14
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 24, 4:10 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
> > No one saw him as presidential before 9/11 (except probably he).
>
> Yeah, he's had visions of being president since he was in short pants. I think
> there'll be some trouble for him once the campaign begins in earnest. Things like the
> people he associates with will come up. Guys like mobbed-up Bernie Kerik, or his
> South Carolina campaign chairman, who got indicted on cocaine distribtion charges, or
> Monsignor Alan Placa, who works at Giuliani Associates and has been credibly charged
> with child sexual abuse. This is kind of a big deal if you're campaigning as a law
> and order type.
>
> Another thing that probably will not be good for him is the fact that he got
> booted off the Iraq Study Group by James Baker for not attending *any* meetings. He
> was off doing speaking engagements and getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
> instead.
I'm sure you must be mistaken about all of this. Were it true, it
would have been all over the news. This would be a big deal, after
all. Since it hasn't been dominating the airwaves, it could not be so.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 21:07:26
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
In article <1182667034.232085.269310@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:10 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> >
> > > No one saw him as presidential before 9/11 (except probably he).
> >
> > Yeah, he's had visions of being president since he was in short pants. I
> > think there'll be some trouble for him once the campaign begins in earnest.
> > Things like the people he associates with will come up. Guys like mobbed-up
> > Bernie Kerik, or his South Carolina campaign chairman, who got indicted on
> > cocaine distribtion charges, or Monsignor Alan Placa, who works at Giuliani
> > Associates and has been credibly charged with child sexual abuse. This is
> > kind of a big deal if you're campaigning as a law and order type.
> >
> > Another thing that probably will not be good for him is the fact that he
> > got booted off the Iraq Study Group by James Baker for not attending *any*
> > meetings. He was off doing speaking engagements and getting paid hundreds of
> > thousands of dollars instead.
>
> I'm sure you must be mistaken about all of this. Were it true, it
> would have been all over the news. This would be a big deal, after
> all. Since it hasn't been dominating the airwaves, it could not be so.
True. On the other hand, maybe the Liberal Media doesn't have enough time or
reporters to spend time on insignificant things like these because they're all
covering Important Issues, like how much a Dem candidate spent on a haircut, or
whether Nancy Pelosi wore a scarf.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 17:30:28
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:10 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No one saw him as presidential before 9/11 (except probably he).
>> Yeah, he's had visions of being president since he was in short pants. I think
>> there'll be some trouble for him once the campaign begins in earnest. Things like the
>> people he associates with will come up. Guys like mobbed-up Bernie Kerik, or his
>> South Carolina campaign chairman, who got indicted on cocaine distribtion charges, or
>> Monsignor Alan Placa, who works at Giuliani Associates and has been credibly charged
>> with child sexual abuse. This is kind of a big deal if you're campaigning as a law
>> and order type.
>>
>> Another thing that probably will not be good for him is the fact that he got
>> booted off the Iraq Study Group by James Baker for not attending *any* meetings. He
>> was off doing speaking engagements and getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
>> instead.
>
> I'm sure you must be mistaken about all of this. Were it true, it
> would have been all over the news. This would be a big deal, after
> all. Since it hasn't been dominating the airwaves, it could not be so.
>
If he continues to do well in the polls, it might be like after JFK jr.
died in that crash.
Steve
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 12:47:56
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 01:06:55
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 22, 7:53 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion for
> the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
Has Tom explained to you why Rachel Carson is responsible for hundreds
of millions of malaria deaths?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 18:34:25
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote in
news:1182586015.857508.178740@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 22, 7:53 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion
>> for the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
>
> Has Tom explained to you why Rachel Carson is responsible for hundreds
> of millions of malaria deaths?
>
No, but I can guess the story line. Have you tried to explain to Tom how
corporate interests in the developed world decided there wasn't enough
money to be made in selling anti-malarial drugs to bother developing them
and that, not the lack of DDT (which is still widely available globally),
causes those malaria deaths?
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 01:03:07
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 22, 10:29 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Most of the natives in Barrow look like Marco Polo. In fact, he is
> referred to as Marc o'Pole in Inuit legend.
But you're ignoring the most compelling evidence of all: there are
reports that in a Venetian townhouse, there is a remnant of a frayed
piece of fabric dating to the 13th Century on which is written: "My
uncle visited Barrow Alaska and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 20:03:09
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
William Asher wrote:
>> Most of the natives in Barrow look like Marco Polo. In fact, he is
>> referred to as Marc o'Pole in Inuit legend.
rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
> But you're ignoring the most compelling evidence of all: there are
> reports that in a Venetian townhouse, there is a remnant of a frayed
> piece of fabric dating to the 13th Century on which is written: "My
> uncle visited Barrow Alaska and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Its probably on youtube as well.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 18:41:53
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in news:467d6082$0$14792
$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:
> William Asher wrote:
>>> Most of the natives in Barrow look like Marco Polo. In fact, he is
>>> referred to as Marc o'Pole in Inuit legend.
>
> rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
>> But you're ignoring the most compelling evidence of all: there are
>> reports that in a Venetian townhouse, there is a remnant of a frayed
>> piece of fabric dating to the 13th Century on which is written: "My
>> uncle visited Barrow Alaska and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
>
> Its probably on youtube as well.
Search for the "Barrow Postcard of Venice" and you can find many
references to the mysterious postcard, brown with age, showing a picture
of a polar bear lying dejectedly on an ice floe with the humorous caption
"Until they invent Tupperware, I'll never get a tight seal." On the back
is the message "The nights are cold but the chicks are hot. -ciao mp"
It's never been authenticated since the corner with the postmark was
conveniently torn off. As you can imagine, along with the t-shirt shard,
this postcard has been the subject of much discussion by Marco Polo
scholars.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 11:51:05
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 22, 7:53 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the
> presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel reference
> points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the
> increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to UHI
> effects, but why bother?
Don't you know that Marco Polo stopped off in Barrow on his way to the
North Pole?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 13:48:54
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:53 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the
>> presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel reference
>> points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the
>> increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to UHI
>> effects, but why bother?
>
> Don't you know that Marco Polo stopped off in Barrow on his way to the
> North Pole?
>
He thought it was Barrow in Furnace
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 20:29:16
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:53 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the
>> presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel
>> reference points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer,
>> so that the increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be
>> attributed to UHI effects, but why bother?
>
> Don't you know that Marco Polo stopped off in Barrow on his way to the
> North Pole?
>
Most of the natives in Barrow look like Marco Polo. In fact, he is
referred to as Marc o'Pole in Inuit legend.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 10:22:49
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 19, 6:43 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reference
> Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at
> Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical
> Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.
>
> What does this mean? It means that anyone that uses temperature
> recordings from anywhere near human habitation cannot get an accurate
> record because variations of two orders of magnitude over the natural
> variability cannot be filtered out of the data.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/hadsst2gl.png
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 17:53:12
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:43 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA)
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------- Reference
>> Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at
>> Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical
>> Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.
>>
>> What does this mean? It means that anyone that uses temperature
>> recordings from anywhere near human habitation cannot get an accurate
>> record because variations of two orders of magnitude over the natural
>> variability cannot be filtered out of the data.
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/hadsst2gl.png
>
You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the
presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel reference
points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the
increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to UHI
effects, but why bother? The question to ask people like Tom is what
evidence would it take to convince them that global mean temperature is
rising and that the cause of this rise is the increase in atmospheric CO2
levels caused by human activity. They invariably will say "nothing would
convince me because x, y, and z" where x, y, and z are standard "climate
skeptic" arguments easily debunked by a cursory examination of the
literature (e.g., the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic in
origin). Their response means they are without objectivity and the debate
has entered the sphere of religion, not science.
It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion for
the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 14:05:41
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns99576EBB92AE5FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 6:43 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA)
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---------- Reference
>>> Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at
>>> Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical
>>> Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.
>>>
>>> What does this mean? It means that anyone that uses temperature
>>> recordings from anywhere near human habitation cannot get an
>>> accurate
>>> record because variations of two orders of magnitude over the
>>> natural
>>> variability cannot be filtered out of the data.
>>
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/hadsst2gl.png
>>
>
> You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the
> presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel
> reference
> points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the
> increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to
> UHI
> effects, but why bother? The question to ask people like Tom is what
> evidence would it take to convince them that global mean temperature
> is
> rising and that the cause of this rise is the increase in atmospheric
> CO2
> levels caused by human activity. They invariably will say "nothing
> would
> convince me because x, y, and z" where x, y, and z are standard
> "climate
> skeptic" arguments easily debunked by a cursory examination of the
> literature (e.g., the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic
> in
> origin). Their response means they are without objectivity and the
> debate
> has entered the sphere of religion, not science.
>
> It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion
> for
> the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
>
Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who are not
convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2
problem, we are not out of the woods.
Phil H
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 21:26:13
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
In article <Xns99576EBB92AE5FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion for
> the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
The most simple example of that regarding TK is the number of times he's posted
about how the main IPCC report IS BEING CHANGED TO MATCH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE
SUMMARY!!!! in spite of you patiently explaining several times what is actually
happening. They aren't interested in knowing.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 04:48:55
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in
news:YOURhoward-0B9B7F.21261322062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns99576EBB92AE5FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>, William Asher
> <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion
>> for the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
>
> The most simple example of that regarding TK is the number of times
> he's posted
> about how the main IPCC report IS BEING CHANGED TO MATCH THE
> CONCLUSIONS OF THE SUMMARY!!!! in spite of you patiently explaining
> several times what is actually happening. They aren't interested in
> knowing.
>
Climate change is scary, nobody really wants to know that the lifestyle
they know and love is a huge global problem. It is directly analogous to
cigarettes, which was the same thing on a personal scale in the 50's and
60's, and on an interpersonal scale for 2nd-hand tobacco smoke in the
last 15 years. In all three situations, the evidence supporting a causal
link between something and harmful outcomes was overwhelming almost
decades before anyone in power did anything about it, mainly because
people don't want to know and can't admit personal responsibility. It's
as easy to believe your kid has asthma because of something other than
your nicotine addiction as it is to believe that every single one of the
thousands of temperature records that make up the Mann et al. hockey-
stick plot are corrupt and therefore nothing need be done about CO2. I
don't blame people like Tom for being in denial, climate science is
complicated (I liken it to a huge Lego model of a submarine, with
thousands of interlocking bricks, any one of which on its own doesn't
look much like a submarine, but when assembled is a really good likeness
(and by reverse reasoning, removing a few of those bricks from the
assembled model does not reduce the likeness of the model to a
submarine)), the conclusions are pretty damning to our lifestyles, and
the problem is probably intractable, but that doesn't make the science
wrong.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 12:48:14
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 21, 7:14 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> Trash shouldn't be published.
I'm going to put my trash in the burn barrel out back. To hell with
AGW!!!
I burn what I want to burn! I need to feel free.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 18:38:09
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 20, 7:37 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:00 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
> > now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
> > interests.
>
> I do find it entertaining how you don't want to address the actual
> science but instead turn to motivation.
I read some of the pdf but didn't find much science
in it. There is a lot of cherry picking, more than
I can go around refuting without getting paid by
Exxon for my time. When I got to the point where
they talk about how we need to increase CO2 concentration
from 400 ppm to ~700 ppm in order to increase the
efficiency of plant growth to feed the projected
increased population, a great tiredness came over me.
(I don't think carbon is the limiting factor in how
much food we can grow. In a lot of places, it's water,
and carbon-driven climate change is likely to make
this worse rather than better in many of the poorest
places on Earth.)
Anyway, Tom, talking to you about science on RBR has been
proven to be about as effective as quieting a squeaky
door hinge by reading "Machinery's Handbook" to it.
If you turn every conversation into a farrago of
insults and distractions, you can expect people to
stop trying to talk to you. Eventually, we'll even
stop making fun of you, and then what will you do?
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 00:29:45
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1182364689.517644.92320@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 7:37 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 12:00 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
>> > now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
>> > interests.
>>
>> I do find it entertaining how you don't want to address the actual
>> science but instead turn to motivation.
>
>
> I read some
This is interesting especially when followed by:
> of the pdf but didn't find much science
> in it. There is a lot of cherry picking
You make yourself clear even to yourself.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 18:42:52
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> When I got to the point where
> they talk about how we need to increase CO2 concentration
> from 400 ppm to ~700 ppm in order to increase the
> efficiency of plant growth to feed the projected
> increased population, a great tiredness came over me.
And well it should. The number is wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/37j3cu
There is no such thing as a free, or even one available at 20%, 30%, 40%,
even 50% below our already unbelievable low cost, lunch.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 07:37:17
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 20, 12:00 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
> now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
> interests.
I do find it entertaining how you don't want to address the actual
science but instead turn to motivation.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 18:02:50
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:00 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>> By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
>> now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
>> interests.
>
> I do find it entertaining how you don't want to address the actual
> science but instead turn to motivation.
>
Tom:
When people do try to explain the science to you, you don't listen or, more
likely, you just go into assault mode because it isn't what you want to
hear.
Ask yourself this though, in 1988, who was correct in predicting what
global mean temperatures would do over the next 20 years, Idso or Hansen?
Remember to state your answer in the form of a question.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 07:34:55
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 19, 6:21 pm, Fred Fredburger
<Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
> used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
> endeavors, have moved to the forefront.
>
> They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -
No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
you still can't just say screw it and walk away.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 20:53:18
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:21 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
>> used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
>> endeavors, have moved to the forefront.
>>
>> They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -
>
> No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
> don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
> Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
> you still can't just say screw it and walk away.
>
Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.
Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
only be interpreted that way.
You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
only what she feels obliged to.
One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 16:53:38
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
> Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.
>
> Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
> she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
> prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
> only be interpreted that way.
>
> You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
> to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
> she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
> only what she feels obliged to.
>
> One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
> traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
> un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
Bah. A Yankee fan growing up in Brooklyn--that's it in a nutshell.
Wait till he has to actually work with someone he doesn't agree with.
http://tinyurl.com/2uj9dy
Steve
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 21:26:20
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
In article <m8Tei.86$Zx4.7@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net > wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.
> >
> > Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
> > she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
> > prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
> > only be interpreted that way.
> >
> > You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
> > to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
> > she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
> > only what she feels obliged to.
> >
> > One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
> > traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
> > un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
>
>
> Bah. A Yankee fan growing up in Brooklyn--that's it in a nutshell.
> Wait till he has to actually work with someone he doesn't agree with.
He doesn't seem to care. He'll find a way to go around them and do what he wants.
Example: when asked about what he'd do if Congress defunded a war (which is within
their Constitutionally appointed realm), he said that he'd take the money from
somewhere else. Oy...
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 14:10:56
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <m8Tei.86$Zx4.7@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>> Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.
>>>
>>> Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
>>> she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
>>> prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
>>> only be interpreted that way.
>>>
>>> You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
>>> to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
>>> she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
>>> only what she feels obliged to.
>>>
>>> One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
>>> traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
>>> un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
>>
>> Bah. A Yankee fan growing up in Brooklyn--that's it in a nutshell.
>> Wait till he has to actually work with someone he doesn't agree with.
>
> He doesn't seem to care. He'll find a way to go around them and do what he wants.
> Example: when asked about what he'd do if Congress defunded a war (which is within
> their Constitutionally appointed realm), he said that he'd take the money from
> somewhere else. Oy...
>
No one saw him as presidential before 9/11 (except probably he).
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 19:10:31
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
In article <QR9fi.4819$pT4.2163@trndny06 >,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> No one saw him as presidential before 9/11 (except probably he).
Yeah, he's had visions of being president since he was in short pants. I think
there'll be some trouble for him once the campaign begins in earnest. Things like the
people he associates with will come up. Guys like mobbed-up Bernie Kerik, or his
South Carolina campaign chairman, who got indicted on cocaine distribtion charges, or
Monsignor Alan Placa, who works at Giuliani Associates and has been credibly charged
with child sexual abuse. This is kind of a big deal if you're campaigning as a law
and order type.
Another thing that probably will not be good for him is the fact that he got
booted off the Iraq Study Group by James Baker for not attending *any* meetings. He
was off doing speaking engagements and getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
instead.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 10:16:32
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:53:18 -0700, Fred Fredburger
<Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh > wrote:
>cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 6:21 pm, Fred Fredburger
>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
>>> used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
>>> endeavors, have moved to the forefront.
>>>
>>> They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
>> don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
>> Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
>> you still can't just say screw it and walk away.
>>
>
>Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.
>
>Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
>she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
>prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
>only be interpreted that way.
>
>You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
>to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
>she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
>only what she feels obliged to.
As much as I dislike and distrust Hillary, she's to be prefered over the usual
suspects that the Dems march out. She can be pushed, she watches the polls,
believes the focus groups and in general is willing to go where she sees the
wind blowing. Normally this isn't a good trait, but it would be better than the
Kerrys, Gores, Kucinichs and Obamas - true believers to a man. Or at least truly
committed to some really bad ideas.
>One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
>traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
>un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
He has more actual executive experience than the next 5 people in the race
combined. Someone was asking about the probable Fred Thompson run and my off
hand comment was that he had little experience in govt other than a term and a
half in the senate. Then I realized that put him ahead of the other contenders.
One thing that sets Rudy apart (and this is something the Dems would profit by
learning from) is that he has made a respectful peace with social conservatives.
The Dems still seem to think that the religious right demands conformity when
all they demand is to not be insulted. They would prefer complete agreement,
like any other faction, but it isn't necessary.
Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 08:39:17
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
In article
<rrln735irjflgg1cprd6sj01ufp5v3d7qp@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> As much as I dislike and distrust Hillary, she's to be prefered over the usual
> suspects that the Dems march out. She can be pushed, she watches the polls,
> believes the focus groups and in general is willing to go where she sees the
> wind blowing. Normally this isn't a good trait, but it would be better than the
> Kerrys, Gores, Kucinichs and Obamas - true believers to a man. Or at least truly
> committed to some really bad ideas.
Obama is not a true believer. He is a hothouse flower.
Maybe later something else. Now he is carefully tended.
Elvis has left the building.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 21:26:25
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
In article <rrln735irjflgg1cprd6sj01ufp5v3d7qp@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:53:18 -0700, Fred Fredburger
> <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
> >One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
> >traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
> >un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
>
> He has more actual executive experience than the next 5 people in the race
> combined. Someone was asking about the probable Fred Thompson run and my off
> hand comment was that he had little experience in govt other than a term and
> a half in the senate. Then I realized that put him ahead of the other
> contenders.
To me, Thompson is a light-weight who sounds presidential. He's good at making use
of props, like the red pickup that he was famous for when he campaigned for the
Senate. The one his campaign rented and drove him in from one parking lot to the
event...
> One thing that sets Rudy apart (and this is something the Dems would profit
> by learning from) is that he has made a respectful peace with social
> conservatives.
Well, Ron, I'm not really all that sure that Giuliani's actually made a respectful
peace with the social conservatives (and the religeous right that Rove has considered
the GOP base). His positions have certainly undergone a serious change since he
started to officially run. One of the most obvious points would be his position on
abortion - he does recognize that the majority of the US population may find abortion
to be an unpleasant thing but that they do tend to believe that there should be
choice. So he's said things that lean towards what the base want to hear but still
sort of gives him some wiggle room. Anyway, I think the GOP base doesn't really care
for some of Giuliani's past positions but he's been the most assertive about what
they seem to like to hear right now - that he'll be very vigorous about battling
Islamic bad guys.
One thing that I found rather interesting was that several conservative pundits
have pointed out that Giuliani's hideously nasty and public divorce from his second
wife was a huge *positive* among many in the GOP base. It was an indication to them
of his perceived "toughness" and power. Essentially, the GOP base and social
conservatives seem to be holding their noses about his social positions in favor of
his position on the GWOT.
To me, Giuliani is a huge authoritarian - when asked if he believed the president
should have the power to arrest U.S. citizens and detain them with no review, he said
that he'd want to use that authority infrequently. Hmm, the Constitution seems to
indicate that there is no no such "authority" available to the executive. Even Scalia
found that to be repugnant (in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld).
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 18:22:49
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
RonSonic wrote:
> As much as I dislike and distrust Hillary, she's to be prefered over the usual
> suspects that the Dems march out. She can be pushed, she watches the polls,
> believes the focus groups and in general is willing to go where she sees the
> wind blowing. Normally this isn't a good trait, but it would be better than the
> Kerrys, Gores, Kucinichs and Obamas - true believers to a man. Or at least truly
> committed to some really bad ideas.
That's my impression of Hillary too. I also believe that Hillary
wouldn't be especially susceptible to overly zealous advisors. If they
tell her to move against the wind, she wont listen.
>
>> One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
>> traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
>> un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
>
> He has more actual executive experience than the next 5 people in the race
> combined. Someone was asking about the probable Fred Thompson run and my off
> hand comment was that he had little experience in govt other than a term and a
> half in the senate. Then I realized that put him ahead of the other contenders.
>
> One thing that sets Rudy apart (and this is something the Dems would profit by
> learning from) is that he has made a respectful peace with social conservatives.
> The Dems still seem to think that the religious right demands conformity when
> all they demand is to not be insulted.
I don't think the religious right is a homogeneous (C'mon, Donald,
there's one just hanging for you!) bunch, though they do tend to vote
that way. I remember a bunch of them kicking up a fuss against GW in
2004 because he hadn't delivered on their agenda. The threat was that
they'd all stay home instead of going to the polls. A small group making
noise way out of proportion to their size. They hardly spoke for the
entire Christian right, but they made use of the impression that they
all think and act and vote the same. They backed off before the
elections, claiming to have extracted sufficient promises from the
administration. I expect to hear similar noise raised against Guiliani
if he's still a serious candidate next March or so. But it'll just be
noise. What are they gonna do vote for Hillary?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 20:23:12
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> That's my impression of Hillary too. I also believe that Hillary
> wouldn't be especially susceptible to overly zealous advisors. If they
> tell her to move against the wind, she wont listen.
Chung would probably advise her to go with the tailwind if she doesn't
want any wheelsuckers. The real question is if she and Bill were riding a
tandem who would be the stoker.
> I don't think the religious right is a homogeneous (C'mon, Donald,
> there's one just hanging for you!) bunch, though they do tend to vote
> that way.
I'll have to restrain myself for fear of polluting the newsgroups for
generations to come.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 13:36:54
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> That's my impression of Hillary too. I also believe that Hillary
>> wouldn't be especially susceptible to overly zealous advisors. If they
>> tell her to move against the wind, she wont listen.
>
> Chung would probably advise her to go with the tailwind if she doesn't
> want any wheelsuckers. The real question is if she and Bill were riding a
> tandem who would be the stoker.
>
When I first read this, I spent a full 15 seconds trying to make sense
of the Bill C. reference before I realized you were talking about a
DIFFERENT Bill C.
>> I don't think the religious right is a homogeneous (C'mon, Donald,
>> there's one just hanging for you!) bunch, though they do tend to vote
>> that way.
>
> I'll have to restrain myself for fear of polluting the newsgroups for
> generations to come.
>
Heavens! We wouldn't want that! This thread does remind me, however,
that we are approaching the quadrennial newsgroup warming. Another 14
months or so 'til meltdown.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 16:55:17
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:53:18 -0700, Fred Fredburger
> <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>
>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 6:21 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
>>>> used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
>>>> endeavors, have moved to the forefront.
>>>>
>>>> They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -
>>> No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
>>> don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
>>> Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
>>> you still can't just say screw it and walk away.
>>>
>> Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.
>>
>> Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
>> she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
>> prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
>> only be interpreted that way.
>>
>> You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
>> to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
>> she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
>> only what she feels obliged to.
>
> As much as I dislike and distrust Hillary, she's to be prefered over the usual
> suspects that the Dems march out. She can be pushed, she watches the polls,
> believes the focus groups and in general is willing to go where she sees the
> wind blowing. Normally this isn't a good trait, but it would be better than the
> Kerrys, Gores, Kucinichs and Obamas - true believers to a man. Or at least truly
> committed to some really bad ideas.
>
>> One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
>> traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
>> un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
>
> He has more actual executive experience than the next 5 people in the race
> combined. Someone was asking about the probable Fred Thompson run and my off
> hand comment was that he had little experience in govt other than a term and a
> half in the senate. Then I realized that put him ahead of the other contenders.
>
> One thing that sets Rudy apart (and this is something the Dems would profit by
> learning from) is that he has made a respectful peace with social conservatives.
Looks like pandering from where I sit.
Steve
> The Dems still seem to think that the religious right demands conformity when
> all they demand is to not be insulted. They would prefer complete agreement,
> like any other faction, but it isn't necessary.
>
> Ron
>
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 06:30:03
From: Steven L. Sheffield
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On 6/21/07 9:53 PM, in article j7ednfChwt452ubbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh > wrote:
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 6:21 pm, Fred Fredburger
>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
>>> used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
>>> endeavors, have moved to the forefront.
>>>
>>> They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
>> don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
>> Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
>> you still can't just say screw it and walk away.
>>
>
> Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.
>
> Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
> she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
> prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
> only be interpreted that way.
>
> You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
> to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
> she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
> only what she feels obliged to.
>
> One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
> traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
> un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.
I used to think that if Giuliani ran, that I'd vote for him ... But he's
still just a bit too much of a hawk for me ... same thing with McCain. The
one thing I do like about both of them is that they tend to speak their
minds ... I "feel" they are both more honest than the Bush administration.
I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, which may surprise Kunich.
I like Barack Obama, which will likely drive Kunich crazy.
I like John Edwards, who is a bit more centrist.
I still like Al Gore.
And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 17:45:01
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
> and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
> I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.
Bloomberg is the most interesting (potential) third party candidate in a
long time. Most 3rd party candidates pose a bigger threat to one party's
candidate than the other. It's kind of rare for one to land in the
center between 2 candidates. Bloomberg can do that. Not since John
Anderson or thereabouts.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 22:17:12
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:45:01 -0700, Fred Fredburger
<Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh > wrote:
>Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>
>> And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
>> and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
>> I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.
>
>Bloomberg is the most interesting (potential) third party candidate in a
>long time. Most 3rd party candidates pose a bigger threat to one party's
>candidate than the other. It's kind of rare for one to land in the
>center between 2 candidates. Bloomberg can do that. Not since John
>Anderson or thereabouts.
I don't know why. To me he seems like a fairly mainstream Dem. Too conservative
(normal?) to be a NY Dem which is why he flipped to run for mayor. He knew he
couldn't make it past the Dem primaries. Unlike most of the rest of the field
he's got actual experience managing something larger than a law office or senate
staff.
Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 15:59:11
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> I like Barack Obama, which will likely drive Kunich crazy.
> I still like Al Gore.
And that won't drive Kunich crazy ? Anyway you probably won't have to do
much driving.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 05:04:39
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 20, 3:00 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
>
> Also, they are exonerating themselves of "hypocracy,"
> which AFAIK is a political system of government by
> hypocrites.
Rather broad definition. Accurate - still rather broad.
R
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 07:00:33
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 19, 10:13 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
>
> Obviously an advocacy group. Trying to find who funds this
> "organization", I found this on their website:
>
> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/questions/199...
>
That's a prime example of how, when you don't want to
answer the question, you gotta keep it short; the more
you write the more it seems that you're hiding something.
Also, they are exonerating themselves of "hypocracy,"
which AFAIK is a political system of government by
hypocrites. Or maybe government by hypodermic needles?
I must of slept through that week in Poli Sci class.
By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
interests.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 14:14:49
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> That's a prime example of how, when you don't want to
> answer the question, you gotta keep it short; the more
> you write the more it seems that you're hiding something.
>
> Also, they are exonerating themselves of "hypocracy,"
> which AFAIK is a political system of government by
> hypocrites. Or maybe government by hypodermic needles?
> I must of slept through that week in Poli Sci class.
>
> By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
> now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
> interests.
>
> Ben
>
>
Yeah, I know. I don't always trust them either, but that's another story.
There's plenty of trash in the dental journals; sometimes they declare
financial interest, sometimes they don't. Trash shouldn't be published.
In this case, I have no idea if the original paper is trash. Certainly
I don't give a rat's ass how CO2 Science "critiques" the paper.
If I had the time and interest I'd read the original paper. Which I might.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 00:25:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote in message
news:tJvei.3427$5h6.1810@trnddc05...
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>
>> That's a prime example of how, when you don't want to
>> answer the question, you gotta keep it short; the more
>> you write the more it seems that you're hiding something.
>>
>> Also, they are exonerating themselves of "hypocracy,"
>> which AFAIK is a political system of government by
>> hypocrites. Or maybe government by hypodermic needles?
>> I must of slept through that week in Poli Sci class.
>>
>> By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
>> now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
>> interests.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I know. I don't always trust them either, but that's another story.
> There's plenty of trash in the dental journals; sometimes they declare
> financial interest, sometimes they don't. Trash shouldn't be published.
> In this case, I have no idea if the original paper is trash. Certainly I
> don't give a rat's ass how CO2 Science "critiques" the paper.
> If I had the time and interest I'd read the original paper. Which I
> might.
Instead of that just read this:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 20:43:08
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 19, 9:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in >
>
> > This isn't about the IPCC.
>
> Far's I can make up you seem to believe that those being maligned by the
I'm sure you can make up more if you try. :)
R
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 10:20:02
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 19, 10:13 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/han...
>
> > "Conclusion
> > As a result of our analysis of Hansen's testimony, we find very little
> > evidence to justify his policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls
> > a "dangerous climate change," but we find significant evidence for an
> > impending world food supply-and-demand problem that may well prove even more
> > devastating to the biosphere - including both humanity and "wild nature" -
> > than what Hansen contends will occur in response to business-as-usual
> > anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A complication introduced by this more recently
> > recognized problem is that its solution would appear to involve our not
> > allowing human-induced CO2 emissions to be restricted, which is just the
> > opposite of what Hansen's policy prescriptions encourage. Clearly, the
> > several interrelated aspects of this many-faceted conundrum demonstrate that
> > it is vastly more complex than how Hansen has characterized it in his
> > testimony and, therefore, that its solution is likely not to be found in the
> > policies he prescribes."
>
> Obviously an advocacy group. Trying to find who funds this
> "organization", I found this on their website:
>
> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/questions/199...
Steve, do you believe that the site that does little else but print
papers from refereed journals can somehow skew opinions because
they're funded from one lobby or another?
If that's so you must have a low opinion of all of those Safe Kids and
Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute and that sort of site.
By the way - what do you suppose it means when the IPCC prints their
conclusions on global warming and then holds up the "proof" while
having the papers modified TO REFLECT THE CONCLUSIONS?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 17:32:06
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Steve, do you believe that the site that does little else but print
> papers from refereed journals can somehow skew opinions because
> they're funded from one lobby or another?
Not mine.
>
> If that's so you must have a low opinion of all of those Safe Kids and
> Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute and that sort of site.
You'll not get me into a helmet thread that easily.
>
> By the way - what do you suppose it means when the IPCC prints their
> conclusions on global warming and then holds up the "proof" while
> having the papers modified TO REFLECT THE CONCLUSIONS?
This isn't about the IPCC.
Steve
>
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 01:34:52
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote in message
news:qqUdi.2855$Zh6.2366@trnddc04...
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Steve, do you believe that the site that does little else but print
>> papers from refereed journals can somehow skew opinions because
>> they're funded from one lobby or another?
>
> Not mine.
>>
>> If that's so you must have a low opinion of all of those Safe Kids and
>> Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute and that sort of site.
>
> You'll not get me into a helmet thread that easily.
>>
>> By the way - what do you suppose it means when the IPCC prints their
>> conclusions on global warming and then holds up the "proof" while
>> having the papers modified TO REFLECT THE CONCLUSIONS?
>
> This isn't about the IPCC.
Far's I can make up you seem to believe that those being maligned by the
IPCC shouldn't have any voice at all and if they dare speak up then you're
going to claim that it's all lies because they have a horse in the race.
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 17:13:56
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf
>
> "Conclusion
> As a result of our analysis of Hansen's testimony, we find very little
> evidence to justify his policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls
> a "dangerous climate change," but we find significant evidence for an
> impending world food supply-and-demand problem that may well prove even more
> devastating to the biosphere - including both humanity and "wild nature" -
> than what Hansen contends will occur in response to business-as-usual
> anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A complication introduced by this more recently
> recognized problem is that its solution would appear to involve our not
> allowing human-induced CO2 emissions to be restricted, which is just the
> opposite of what Hansen's policy prescriptions encourage. Clearly, the
> several interrelated aspects of this many-faceted conundrum demonstrate that
> it is vastly more complex than how Hansen has characterized it in his
> testimony and, therefore, that its solution is likely not to be found in the
> policies he prescribes."
>
>
Obviously an advocacy group. Trying to find who funds this
"organization", I found this on their website:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/questions/1999/funding_resp.jsp
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 09:43:26
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Reference
Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at
Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical
Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.
"On the basis of rural and urban group temperature averages for the
period 1 December to 31 March of four consecutive winters, Hinkel and
Nelson determined that the spatially-averaged temperature of the urban
area was about 2=B0C warmer than that of the rural area, and that it was
not uncommon for the daily magnitude of the urban heat island to
exceed 4=B0C. In fact, they report that on some days the magnitude of
the urban heat island exceeded 6=B0C, and that values in excess of 8=B0C
were even recorded, while noting that the warmest individual site
temperatures were "consistently observed in the urban core area.""
What does this mean? It means that anyone that uses temperature
recordings from anywhere near human habitation cannot get an accurate
record because variations of two orders of magnitude over the natural
variability cannot be filtered out of the data.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2007 18:49:17
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 18, 5:32 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Clearly, the
> > several interrelated aspects of this many-faceted conundrum demonstrate that
> > it is vastly more complex than how Hansen has characterized it in his
> > testimony and, therefore, that its solution is likely not to be found in the
> > policies he prescribes."
>
> Good God. "many-faceted conundrum"? Excellent example of middle
> manager double-speak, which roughly translates to, "I'm a middle and
> middling manager that hopes the bureaucratic phraseology will make me
> appear more intelligent." Seldom works.
It "works" a lot. Haven't you noticed how many of them there are?
They are as prolific as rabbits.
Okay, we got the rabit breeding in, so let's open this up to wing-nut
"overpopulation" kooks since we got the global warming thing started.
3 laws of life:
0. death
1. taxes
2. whatever social problems exist, guvmint will make them worse
-- Ben Franklin, 1759
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jun 2007 20:37:08
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> 2. whatever social problems exist, guvmint will make them worse
>
> -- Ben Franklin, 1759
Wow. BF was a Democrat. I never knew that.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 04:20:33
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
"Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh > wrote in
message news:Po-dnRtRlbXB0urbnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@comcast.com...
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
>> 2. whatever social problems exist, guvmint will make them worse
>>
>> -- Ben Franklin, 1759
>
> Wow. BF was a Democrat. I never knew that.
You mean like Democrat senior Senator Robert C. Byrd once of his more famous
quotes, "One man's pork is another man's job. Pork has been good investment
in West Virginia. You can look around and see what I've done."
By the way, Democrat senior Senator Byrd in 2006 became the first ever
Democrat Senator to secure for his state one BILLION dollars in earmarked
pork.
Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein colluded to get Indian gambling casinos (run
by Reid's Nevada gambling companies of course) in Sacramento county
California. Feinstein's son just happened to then be hired by the "Indians"
to act as their legal representation.
Why those interesting Democrats not only forwarded a Cut and Run bill but
they also installed $20 Billion in earmarked pork. Can't let a good Democrat
sponsored bill go to waste you know.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 18:21:00
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote in
> message news:Po-dnRtRlbXB0urbnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>>> 2. whatever social problems exist, guvmint will make them worse
>>>
>>> -- Ben Franklin, 1759
>> Wow. BF was a Democrat. I never knew that.
>
> You mean like Democrat senior Senator Robert C. Byrd once of his more famous
> quotes, "One man's pork is another man's job. Pork has been good investment
> in West Virginia. You can look around and see what I've done."
>
> By the way, Democrat senior Senator Byrd in 2006 became the first ever
> Democrat Senator to secure for his state one BILLION dollars in earmarked
> pork.
>
Yeah. Byrd is about a million years old and he's ALWAYS been this way.
I'm sure Byrd has won the occasional Pork Barrel Politics Championship,
but the competition is as stiff as Byrd's speech delivery.
Harry Reid and Feinstein are lightweights compared to guys like Byrd and
Ted Stevens. Even in your example, it's not money from tax coffers that
they've got their hands in. If they last long enough, they'll get the
experience and clout necessary. Maybe someday they'll compete.
None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
endeavors, have moved to the forefront.
They have betrayed us, Tom.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2007 17:32:50
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 18, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
> "Clearly, the
> several interrelated aspects of this many-faceted conundrum demonstrate that
> it is vastly more complex than how Hansen has characterized it in his
> testimony and, therefore, that its solution is likely not to be found in the
> policies he prescribes."
Good God. "many-faceted conundrum"? Excellent example of middle
manager double-speak, which roughly translates to, "I'm a middle and
middling manager that hopes the bureaucratic phraseology will make me
appear more intelligent." Seldom works.
R
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 20:11:12
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 22, 10:37 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> You have to watch what he does, not just what he says. He's
> deceptively savvy politically. He's managed to pit real estate
> developers against the affluent left and paint the left as racist. He's
> put a businessman in charge of the department of education and gotten
> rid of all the career educators at the top. He's also continued the
> marginalization of organized labor.
Having dealt with NYC unions more than I care to, I don't necessarily
see that as a negative. There's no doubt he's savvy on several
levels, and that's what's needed to knock people's heads together to
get them to compromise and agree.
Haven't made up my mind about whether he'd make a good president.
R
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 14:09:25
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
RicodJour wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:37 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> You have to watch what he does, not just what he says. He's
>> deceptively savvy politically. He's managed to pit real estate
>> developers against the affluent left and paint the left as racist. He's
>> put a businessman in charge of the department of education and gotten
>> rid of all the career educators at the top. He's also continued the
>> marginalization of organized labor.
>
> Having dealt with NYC unions more than I care to, I don't necessarily
> see that as a negative.
No, of course not. What he does with the control is another thing
altogether. I think the jury is out.
Steve
There's no doubt he's savvy on several
> levels, and that's what's needed to knock people's heads together to
> get them to compromise and agree.
>
> Haven't made up my mind about whether he'd make a good president.
>
> R
>
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 19:23:03
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
On Jun 22, 10:17 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:45:01 -0700, Fred Fredburger
>
> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
> >Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>
> >> And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
> >> and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
> >> I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.
>
> >Bloomberg is the most interesting (potential) third party candidate in a
> >long time. Most 3rd party candidates pose a bigger threat to one party's
> >candidate than the other. It's kind of rare for one to land in the
> >center between 2 candidates. Bloomberg can do that. Not since John
> >Anderson or thereabouts.
>
> I don't know why. To me he seems like a fairly mainstream Dem. Too conservative
> (normal?) to be a NY Dem which is why he flipped to run for mayor. He knew he
> couldn't make it past the Dem primaries. Unlike most of the rest of the field
> he's got actual experience managing something larger than a law office or senate
> staff.
The weird thing is that he epitomizes big business, but doesn't act
big business.
R
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 02:37:00
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
RicodJour wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:17 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:45:01 -0700, Fred Fredburger
>>
>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos.Huh> wrote:
>>> Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>>>> And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
>>>> and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
>>>> I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.
>>> Bloomberg is the most interesting (potential) third party candidate in a
>>> long time. Most 3rd party candidates pose a bigger threat to one party's
>>> candidate than the other. It's kind of rare for one to land in the
>>> center between 2 candidates. Bloomberg can do that. Not since John
>>> Anderson or thereabouts.
>> I don't know why. To me he seems like a fairly mainstream Dem. Too conservative
>> (normal?) to be a NY Dem which is why he flipped to run for mayor. He knew he
>> couldn't make it past the Dem primaries. Unlike most of the rest of the field
>> he's got actual experience managing something larger than a law office or senate
>> staff.
>
> The weird thing is that he epitomizes big business, but doesn't act
> big business.
>
> R
>
You have to watch what he does, not just what he says. He's
deceptively savvy politically. He's managed to pit real estate
developers against the affluent left and paint the left as racist. He's
put a businessman in charge of the department of education and gotten
rid of all the career educators at the top. He's also continued the
marginalization of organized labor.
Steve
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 13:30:18
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> You have to watch what he does, not just what he says.
I don't actually HAVE to. It depends on what I'm trying to accomplish.
I think you're trying to decide what he's all about instead of trying to
determine the impact of what he says he's all about. You'll never become
make it as a media political pundit that way.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 20:57:36
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>
>> You have to watch what he does, not just what he says.
>
> I don't actually HAVE to. It depends on what I'm trying to accomplish.
>
> I think you're trying to decide what he's all about instead of trying to
> determine the impact of what he says he's all about. You'll never become
> make it as a media political pundit that way.
>
>
:-)!
Steve
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 00:37:55
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote in message
news:1182213170.764197.177750@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> "Clearly, the
>> several interrelated aspects of this many-faceted conundrum demonstrate
>> that
>> it is vastly more complex than how Hansen has characterized it in his
>> testimony and, therefore, that its solution is likely not to be found in
>> the
>> policies he prescribes."
>
> Good God. "many-faceted conundrum"? Excellent example of middle
> manager double-speak, which roughly translates to, "I'm a middle and
> middling manager that hopes the bureaucratic phraseology will make me
> appear more intelligent." Seldom works.
The voice of experience speaketh?
|
|
