| |
Main
Date: 10 Nov 2007 11:49:17
From:
Subject: Global Warming =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98Greatest?= Scam in History'
|
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_founder_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm
--
Davey Crockett
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 06:48:39
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 13, 11:54 pm, Bob Martin <bob.mar...@excite.com > wrote:
>
> Was it non-biodegradable?
Hey Bob, how biodegradable is coal? Oil? Lead? Arsenic? Radium?
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 05:32:59
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 10, 5:49 am, <Da...@Crockett.Net > wrote:
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_chann...
> --
> Davey Crockett
there is no question that burning so much fuel and dumping trash has
an effect on hearth. have you seen how hot a pile of garbage gets?
that is what is happening to the hearth.
so just live more humbly, turn of more ligth, reduce the volume on
your tv and radio, drive slower, get conscious of every thing you
waste. you will live happier and help keep our blue planet in better
shape.
carlos
www.bikingthings.com
Get Faster, Enjoy Cycling, Get Fit, Live Better.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 23:46:40
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 19, 2:22 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article
> <7326049c-e16c-4684-8779-840a4da90...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 9:56 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Dumbass: because capitalism rocks.
>
> > > You know what the primary motivation of the production of the MacBook
> > > I'm using to type this at you right now is? To make Apple money. You
> > > know what? That's _why_ it's a good product.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > not everything that makes money is a good product.
>
> And not everybody that smokes gets cancer.
>
> Nonetheless, the system broadly achieves the expected result.
>
dumbass,
buyer beware still applies.
you depend on laws and regulations (or the remote possibility of a
lawsuit) to protect you, but sometimes thats not even enough and
harmful products like vioxx or subprime mortgages are consumed by the
public.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 23:40:16
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 19, 2:17 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <87f02c2e-1f61-4c08-bc64-10c27da36...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 9:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > Let me tell you a little story. Back quite a few score years ago someone got
> > > curious about why most of the world suffers from stomach cancer in fairly
> > > large percentages and why people in the USA seldom get stomach cancer.
>
> > > After a great deal of research they discovered that the preservative in
> > > breakfast cereal boxes was preventing stomach cancers. The rest of the world
> > > began putting that into their packaging while the American weirdoes demanded
> > > that their food be "organic".
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > show us a reference to what you're talking about.
>
> Amit, the first sentence Tom wrote there summed it up nicely. I asked a friend who
> runs a lab at a cancer research center about this and she said that, "Most people
> attribute the decreasing incidence of stomach cancer that occurred in the US over the
> course of the 20th century to 2 things. One- decreasing infection rates of
> Helicobacter pylori, the bacteria I study, and the advent of refrigeration and
> increased access to fruits and vegetables which are thought to protect against
> development of stomach cancer." One might think that she'd have heard about a study
> that showed that a food preservative prevented stomach cancer, since she's been
> studying H pylori for a fair few years.
dumbass,
that's not the same thing as a reference.
i know about the bacteria effect but i also found a study that
suggested that gastric cancer rates dropped mid-century in the US when
the use of nitrates and nitrites for curing meat became more closely
regulated.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 21:53:54
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 18, 9:56 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
>
> Dumbass: because capitalism rocks.
>
> You know what the primary motivation of the production of the MacBook
> I'm using to type this at you right now is? To make Apple money. You
> know what? That's _why_ it's a good product.
>
dumbass,
not everything that makes money is a good product.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 09:25:36
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> You know what the primary motivation of the production of the MacBook
>> I'm using to type this at you right now is? To make Apple money. You
>> know what? That's _why_ it's a good product.
amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> not everything that makes money is a good product.
Like Windoze.
BTW Mac OSX is based on the BSD Unix core which didn't have a
primary motivation of making anyone money. And Apple always has
been all about the OS.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 12:02:42
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
Donald Munro wrote:
> BTW Mac OSX is based on the BSD Unix core which didn't have a
> primary motivation of making anyone money. And Apple always has
> been all about the OS.
Apple always has been about Jobs.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 07:22:44
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
In article
<7326049c-e16c-4684-8779-840a4da90ce8@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:56 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dumbass: because capitalism rocks.
> >
> > You know what the primary motivation of the production of the MacBook
> > I'm using to type this at you right now is? To make Apple money. You
> > know what? That's _why_ it's a good product.
> >
>
> dumbass,
>
> not everything that makes money is a good product.
And not everybody that smokes gets cancer.
Nonetheless, the system broadly achieves the expected result.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 07:51:03
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in
news:rcousine-5010C0.23224218112007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]:
>
> Nonetheless, the system broadly achieves the expected result.
>
Tell that to the kids in Bhopal.
http://tinyurl.com/37o8j8
--
Bill Asher
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 16:31:07
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 16, 9:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:rubrum-807954.11561115112007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
> >> The dairy industry may even be nastier than the beef industry in what
> >> they'll do to raise production, and the big poultry factories are
> >> pretty hideous.
>
> > I have always been against the organic tag.
> > Too precious, as if non-organic food is not nourishing.
>
> > Offering to people a picture of where their food
> > comes from is a worthy endeavor. Force-feeding
> > a new regime ain't.
>
> Let me tell you a little story. Back quite a few score years ago someone got
> curious about why most of the world suffers from stomach cancer in fairly
> large percentages and why people in the USA seldom get stomach cancer.
>
> After a great deal of research they discovered that the preservative in
> breakfast cereal boxes was preventing stomach cancers. The rest of the world
> began putting that into their packaging while the American weirdoes demanded
> that their food be "organic".
dumbass,
show us a reference to what you're talking about.
you keep belabouring this, but if this were the case the prevention of
cancer was an unintended side effect. there are far more examples of
unintended harmful side effects - like melamine in pet food and anti-
freeze in toothpaste.
are you really that naive ? the sole intention of a business is to
make money and not to look after you, so you shouldn't expect it.
a business will do anything it can to make money if it isn't
legislated against.
i'm not against food additive or GM food in principle, but why would
you trustingly embrace modified food if the primary motivation is to
make a company more money and the actual improvement of the food is a
secondary concern ?
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 07:42:25
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in
news:87f02c2e-1f61-4c08-bc64-10c27da365d6@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 16, 9:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
<snip >
>>
>> Let me tell you a little story. Back quite a few score years ago
>> someone got curious about why most of the world suffers from stomach
>> cancer in fairly large percentages and why people in the USA seldom
>> get stomach cancer.
>>
>> After a great deal of research they discovered that the preservative
>> in breakfast cereal boxes was preventing stomach cancers. The rest of
>> the world began putting that into their packaging while the American
>> weirdoes demanded that their food be "organic".
>
> show us a reference to what you're talking about.
>
He can't. The preservative nitrate in processed meats, mainly, is linked
to stomach cancer. However, that correlation is a positive one in that
nitrate leads to nitrite, and *that* is a risk factor for stomach cancer.
There is a preservative used in pet foods, mainly, to keep fat from going
rancid (I forget the name of it, it's something like BHAP or HBVA or BFD
or BBBW-bi-dom) and that also is linked to an increased risk for stomach
cancer (I am not sure if that fat preservative is also used in human
foods, it's been a while since I studied any of this). There is also a
correlation between high fiber diets and decreased risk of stomach
cancer. It is possible Tom got the nitrate/preservative/fiber risks all
jumbled up in his cranial Vegematic, got sliced and diced and made into
mountains of julienne facts, just as easy as that. <shrug >
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 23:17:31
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
In article <87f02c2e-1f61-4c08-bc64-10c27da365d6@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > Let me tell you a little story. Back quite a few score years ago someone got
> > curious about why most of the world suffers from stomach cancer in fairly
> > large percentages and why people in the USA seldom get stomach cancer.
> >
> > After a great deal of research they discovered that the preservative in
> > breakfast cereal boxes was preventing stomach cancers. The rest of the world
> > began putting that into their packaging while the American weirdoes demanded
> > that their food be "organic".
>
> dumbass,
>
> show us a reference to what you're talking about.
Amit, the first sentence Tom wrote there summed it up nicely. I asked a friend who
runs a lab at a cancer research center about this and she said that, "Most people
attribute the decreasing incidence of stomach cancer that occurred in the US over the
course of the 20th century to 2 things. One- decreasing infection rates of
Helicobacter pylori, the bacteria I study, and the advent of refrigeration and
increased access to fruits and vegetables which are thought to protect against
development of stomach cancer." One might think that she'd have heard about a study
that showed that a food preservative prevented stomach cancer, since she's been
studying H pylori for a fair few years. Particularly if it was such a strong study
that "the rest of the world began putting that [preservative] into their
packaging..." for the purpose of reducing stomach cancer rates, as the resident
engineer and scientist claims.
--
tanx,
Howard
Safe when used as directed...
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 02:56:04
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
In article
<87f02c2e-1f61-4c08-bc64-10c27da365d6@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:rubrum-807954.11561115112007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> The dairy industry may even be nastier than the beef industry in what
> > >> they'll do to raise production, and the big poultry factories are
> > >> pretty hideous.
> >
> > > I have always been against the organic tag.
> > > Too precious, as if non-organic food is not nourishing.
> >
> > > Offering to people a picture of where their food
> > > comes from is a worthy endeavor. Force-feeding
> > > a new regime ain't.
> >
> > Let me tell you a little story. Back quite a few score years ago someone got
> > curious about why most of the world suffers from stomach cancer in fairly
> > large percentages and why people in the USA seldom get stomach cancer.
> >
> > After a great deal of research they discovered that the preservative in
> > breakfast cereal boxes was preventing stomach cancers. The rest of the world
> > began putting that into their packaging while the American weirdoes demanded
> > that their food be "organic".
>
> dumbass,
>
> show us a reference to what you're talking about.
>
> you keep belabouring this, but if this were the case the prevention of
> cancer was an unintended side effect. there are far more examples of
> unintended harmful side effects - like melamine in pet food and anti-
> freeze in toothpaste.
>
> are you really that naive ? the sole intention of a business is to
> make money and not to look after you, so you shouldn't expect it.
>
> a business will do anything it can to make money if it isn't
> legislated against.
>
> i'm not against food additive or GM food in principle, but why would
> you trustingly embrace modified food if the primary motivation is to
> make a company more money and the actual improvement of the food is a
> secondary concern ?
Dumbass: because capitalism rocks.
You know what the primary motivation of the production of the MacBook
I'm using to type this at you right now is? To make Apple money. You
know what? That's _why_ it's a good product.
Try again,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2007 15:12:04
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 15, 1:14 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
."
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Safe when used as directed...
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
We've got a great local organization that grew out of the traditional
family farms meeting the new organic market, and the support, finally,
for farms that came with the new movement. It has allowed a lot of
people to stay on land their families have had for generations, and to
keep the land here's soul intact.
http://www.buylocalfood.com/index.html
One of the other great people here in the farm community was the
federal farm bureau director who fought as long as he could stand it,
against the Bu-shit and finally resigned his post because he couldn't
knife his friends in the back. The new guy isn't terrible but he sure
as hell isn't helping matters.
More hypocrisy from the Bushholes.
Bill C
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2007 15:58:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:913ceb82-c37c-4b1c-8c32-12b6c8f6189d@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> One of the other great people here in the farm community was the
> federal farm bureau director who fought as long as he could stand it,
> against the Bu-shit and finally resigned his post because he couldn't
> knife his friends in the back. The new guy isn't terrible but he sure
> as hell isn't helping matters.
> More hypocrisy from the Bushholes.
Is there any doubt that Bush was the hidden Liberal in the woodpile? He has
made about two correct decisions since he's been in office and he was pushed
into both of them by circumstances.
He's raised taxes more than any previous President. He's put in entirely new
bureaucracies that have little or no rhyme or reason to exist. He's in fact
been more Liberal on economic issues than the most Liberal members of
Congress.
And the funny thing is that the moronic Liberals are running against Bush
instead of real Republicans.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2007 02:41:29
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 16, 7:50 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> > "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> > > The primary focus of "organic" is on the food being not loaded with pesticides,
> > > fertilizers, antibiotics and hormones, not the nutrition aspects. This seems like a
> > > reasonable goal to me.
>
> > I think "genetically enhanced" should also be on the list.
>
> You're right, I had forgotten that one.
You guys sound like you're talking about
bike racers.
Ben
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2007 08:16:52
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:92bd281d-96f7-42b2-bc2a-160052b9a90b@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 7:50 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>> > "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> > > The primary focus of "organic" is on the food being not loaded
>> > > with pesticides,
>> > > fertilizers, antibiotics and hormones, not the nutrition aspects.
>> > > This seems like a
>> > > reasonable goal to me.
>>
>> > I think "genetically enhanced" should also be on the list.
>>
>> You're right, I had forgotten that one.
>
> You guys sound like you're talking about
> bike racers.
>
You've never heard of golden rice?
http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Golden_Rice_flyer_2007.pdf
Shame on you.
Phil H
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 10:38:56
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 14, 10:14 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <595ed41b-8450-47fc-9c2f-96938d7a9...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 6:39 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > The beef industry has knocked the age at which cattle have achieved
> > > slaughter weight from 27-28 months old to 18. That tells you something.
> > Small farms generally are not doing this crap, because they can't
> > compete in that market. They need to compete on quality, and health.
>
> Sure, and that accounts for the higher price they command. Yes, there are people
> willing to pay it and who believe they are getting something for their money.
>
> > The factory farms will do anything for a buck. Witness all the ground
> > beef recalls in particular. This is an area where the ecology concious
> > Left has led the way in both raising better animals, creating a market
> > through education, and allowing many old, "conservative" family farms
> > to continue to raise the healthy animals the always have and survive.
> > I have real questions/problems with the "organic" tag because it
> > still isn't strict enough and monitored enough.
>
> I agree - it is a fairly self-policed set up. Of course big agri-biz wants part of
> that pie so they've been working to get the definition of "organic" changed to
> include slightly cleaned up versions of what they normally do. Surprise...
>
> > The dairy industry may even be nastier than the beef industry in what
> > they'll do to raise production, and the big poultry factories are
> > pretty hideous.
>
> As far as I can tell, the factory chicken farms are about the worst of the lot.
> "Oh well, it's just a chicken."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=federal+agricultural+subsidies
Your Frankenstein is on the march!
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 17:07:16
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 14, 6:39 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <DuF_i.59595$RX.42...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > > I was surprised to read in my daughter's science newsletter from
> > > school of the quantity of methane that comes out of cattle. Don't
> > > remember the number, but it was high--and the article did state that
> > > methane (I assume volume for volume) contributes more to greenhouse
> > > global warming than does carbon dioxide. I think the overall estimate
> > > may have been as high as 15-20% of the effective greenhouse effect
> > > attributable to atmospheric gases. Scientists were apparently dealing
> > > with this by giving the cattle some kind of dietary supplement. One has
> > > to wonder if there is an effect on the milk or the meat.
>
> > We dope the snot out of our food supply. No one cares.
>
> > You slip a steroid implant into your beef cattle and they
> > gain weight a lot faster. The cost of the implant is almost
> > nothing. For the farmer, this is a no brainer.
>
> The beef industry has knocked the age at which cattle have achieved slaughter
> weight from 27-28 months old to 18. That tells you something.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Safe when used as directed...
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Small farms generally are not doing this crap, because they can't
compete in that market. They need to compete on quality, and health.
The factory farms will do anything for a buck. Witness all the ground
beef recalls in particular. This is an area where the ecology concious
Left has led the way in both raising better animals, creating a market
through education, and allowing many old, "conservative" family farms
to continue to raise the healthy animals the always have and survive.
I have real questions/problems with the "organic" tag because it
still isn't strict enough and monitored enough.
The dairy industry may even be nastier than the beef industry in what
they'll do to raise production, and the big poultry factories are
pretty hideous.
Bill C
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 19:56:11
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
In article
<595ed41b-8450-47fc-9c2f-96938d7a9055@o6g2000hsd.google
groups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 14, 6:39 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article <DuF_i.59595$RX.42...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > > > I was surprised to read in my daughter's science newsletter from
> > > > school of the quantity of methane that comes out of cattle. Don't
> > > > remember the number, but it was high--and the article did state that
> > > > methane (I assume volume for volume) contributes more to greenhouse
> > > > global warming than does carbon dioxide. I think the overall estimate
> > > > may have been as high as 15-20% of the effective greenhouse effect
> > > > attributable to atmospheric gases. Scientists were apparently dealing
> > > > with this by giving the cattle some kind of dietary supplement. One has
> > > > to wonder if there is an effect on the milk or the meat.
> >
> > > We dope the snot out of our food supply. No one cares.
> >
> > > You slip a steroid implant into your beef cattle and they
> > > gain weight a lot faster. The cost of the implant is almost
> > > nothing. For the farmer, this is a no brainer.
> >
> > The beef industry has knocked the age at which cattle have achieved slaughter
> > weight from 27-28 months old to 18. That tells you something.
>
> Small farms generally are not doing this crap, because they can't
> compete in that market. They need to compete on quality, and health.
> The factory farms will do anything for a buck. Witness all the ground
> beef recalls in particular. This is an area where the ecology concious
> Left has led the way in both raising better animals, creating a market
> through education, and allowing many old, "conservative" family farms
> to continue to raise the healthy animals the always have and survive.
> I have real questions/problems with the "organic" tag because it
> still isn't strict enough and monitored enough.
> The dairy industry may even be nastier than the beef industry in what
> they'll do to raise production, and the big poultry factories are
> pretty hideous.
I have always been against the organic tag.
Too precious, as if non-organic food is not nourishing.
Offering to people a picture of where their food
comes from is a worthy endeavor. Force-feeding
a new regime ain't.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 18:13:55
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-807954.11561115112007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> The dairy industry may even be nastier than the beef industry in what
>> they'll do to raise production, and the big poultry factories are
>> pretty hideous.
>
> I have always been against the organic tag.
> Too precious, as if non-organic food is not nourishing.
>
> Offering to people a picture of where their food
> comes from is a worthy endeavor. Force-feeding
> a new regime ain't.
Let me tell you a little story. Back quite a few score years ago someone got
curious about why most of the world suffers from stomach cancer in fairly
large percentages and why people in the USA seldom get stomach cancer.
After a great deal of research they discovered that the preservative in
breakfast cereal boxes was preventing stomach cancers. The rest of the world
began putting that into their packaging while the American weirdoes demanded
that their food be "organic".
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 23:44:00
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
In article <rubrum-807954.11561115112007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
> I have always been against the organic tag.
> Too precious, as if non-organic food is not nourishing.
The primary focus of "organic" is on the food being not loaded with pesticides,
fertilizers, antibiotics and hormones, not the nutrition aspects. This seems like a
reasonable goal to me.
--
tanx,
Howard
Safe when used as directed...
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 16:20:13
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-0C0662.23440015112007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article
> <rubrum-807954.11561115112007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I have always been against the organic tag.
>> Too precious, as if non-organic food is not nourishing.
>
> The primary focus of "organic" is on the food being not loaded with
> pesticides,
> fertilizers, antibiotics and hormones, not the nutrition aspects. This
> seems like a
> reasonable goal to me.
I think "genetically enhanced" should also be on the list.
Phil H
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 18:50:38
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
In article <PtednSAgItFcrqPanZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-0C0662.23440015112007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <rubrum-807954.11561115112007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I have always been against the organic tag.
> >> Too precious, as if non-organic food is not nourishing.
> >
> > The primary focus of "organic" is on the food being not loaded with pesticides,
> > fertilizers, antibiotics and hormones, not the nutrition aspects. This seems like a
> > reasonable goal to me.
>
> I think "genetically enhanced" should also be on the list.
You're right, I had forgotten that one.
--
tanx,
Howard
Safe when used as directed...
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 22:14:07
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
In article <595ed41b-8450-47fc-9c2f-96938d7a9055@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 14, 6:39 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > The beef industry has knocked the age at which cattle have achieved
> > slaughter weight from 27-28 months old to 18. That tells you something.
> Small farms generally are not doing this crap, because they can't
> compete in that market. They need to compete on quality, and health.
Sure, and that accounts for the higher price they command. Yes, there are people
willing to pay it and who believe they are getting something for their money.
> The factory farms will do anything for a buck. Witness all the ground
> beef recalls in particular. This is an area where the ecology concious
> Left has led the way in both raising better animals, creating a market
> through education, and allowing many old, "conservative" family farms
> to continue to raise the healthy animals the always have and survive.
> I have real questions/problems with the "organic" tag because it
> still isn't strict enough and monitored enough.
I agree - it is a fairly self-policed set up. Of course big agri-biz wants part of
that pie so they've been working to get the definition of "organic" changed to
include slightly cleaned up versions of what they normally do. Surprise...
> The dairy industry may even be nastier than the beef industry in what
> they'll do to raise production, and the big poultry factories are
> pretty hideous.
As far as I can tell, the factory chicken farms are about the worst of the lot.
"Oh well, it's just a chicken."
--
tanx,
Howard
Safe when used as directed...
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2007 06:38:14
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
When Davey started this thread, he sure fucked up
This is the biggest scam in history
http://www.theblimp.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?autostart=true&enablejs=true&feedurl=http://theblimp.blip.tv/rss&file=http://www.theblimp.blip.tv/rss/flash/345491&showplayerpath=http://www.theblimp.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer
--
Davey Crockett
-
Driving a Stake through the
Heart of the Politically Correct
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 18:23:06
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
<cyclingthings@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194960779.246958.26850@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> there is no question that burning so much fuel and dumping trash has
> an effect on hearth. have you seen how hot a pile of garbage gets?
> that is what is happening to the hearth.
Tell me, have you ever seen what happens to a pile of buffaloes shit in the
sun? Do you have any idea how much of that was being placed out in the sun
before the White Man came to the US?
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 07:54:28
From: Bob Martin
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
in 557897 20071114 022306 "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
><cyclingthings@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1194960779.246958.26850@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> there is no question that burning so much fuel and dumping trash has
>> an effect on hearth. have you seen how hot a pile of garbage gets?
>> that is what is happening to the hearth.
>
>Tell me, have you ever seen what happens to a pile of buffaloes shit in the
>sun? Do you have any idea how much of that was being placed out in the sun
>before the White Man came to the US?
Was it non-biodegradable?
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 15:15:28
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
Bob Martin wrote:
> in 557897 20071114 022306 "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <cyclingthings@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1194960779.246958.26850@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> there is no question that burning so much fuel and dumping trash has
>>> an effect on hearth. have you seen how hot a pile of garbage gets?
>>> that is what is happening to the hearth.
>> Tell me, have you ever seen what happens to a pile of buffaloes shit in the
>> sun? Do you have any idea how much of that was being placed out in the sun
>> before the White Man came to the US?
>
> Was it non-biodegradable?
I was surprised to read in my daughter's science newsletter from school
of the quantity of methane that comes out of cattle. Don't remember the
number, but it was high--and the article did state that methane (I
assume volume for volume) contributes more to greenhouse global warming
than does carbon dioxide. I think the overall estimate may have been as
high as 15-20% of the effective greenhouse effect attributable to
atmospheric gases. Scientists were apparently dealing with this by
giving the cattle some kind of dietary supplement. One has to wonder if
there is an effect on the milk or the meat.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 16:36:51
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> I was surprised to read in my daughter's science newsletter from
> school of the quantity of methane that comes out of cattle. Don't
> remember the number, but it was high--and the article did state that
> methane (I assume volume for volume) contributes more to greenhouse
> global warming than does carbon dioxide. I think the overall estimate
> may have been as high as 15-20% of the effective greenhouse effect
> attributable to atmospheric gases. Scientists were apparently dealing
> with this by giving the cattle some kind of dietary supplement. One has
> to wonder if there is an effect on the milk or the meat.
We dope the snot out of our food supply. No one cares.
You slip a steroid implant into your beef cattle and they
gain weight a lot faster. The cost of the implant is almost
nothing. For the farmer, this is a no brainer.
This is somewhat on topic in that one enterprising cyclist
has built a business on supplying the stuff you need to
process these cheap-as-dirt implants into cheap-as-dirt
veterinary grade performance enhancers.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 16:39:15
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
In article <DuF_i.59595$RX.42328@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net >,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > I was surprised to read in my daughter's science newsletter from
> > school of the quantity of methane that comes out of cattle. Don't
> > remember the number, but it was high--and the article did state that
> > methane (I assume volume for volume) contributes more to greenhouse
> > global warming than does carbon dioxide. I think the overall estimate
> > may have been as high as 15-20% of the effective greenhouse effect
> > attributable to atmospheric gases. Scientists were apparently dealing
> > with this by giving the cattle some kind of dietary supplement. One has
> > to wonder if there is an effect on the milk or the meat.
>
> We dope the snot out of our food supply. No one cares.
>
> You slip a steroid implant into your beef cattle and they
> gain weight a lot faster. The cost of the implant is almost
> nothing. For the farmer, this is a no brainer.
The beef industry has knocked the age at which cattle have achieved slaughter
weight from 27-28 months old to 18. That tells you something.
--
tanx,
Howard
Safe when used as directed...
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 10:20:56
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
>>Tell me, have you ever seen what happens to a pile of buffaloes shit in
>>the sun? Do you have any idea how much of that was being placed out in
>>the sun before the White Man came to the US?
Bob Martin wrote:
> Was it non-biodegradable?
I thought plastic shit came from China.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 12:27:33
From: Mike Bruno
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 10, 2:49 am, <Da...@Crockett.Net > wrote:
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_chann...
> --
> Davey Crockett
I thought global warming was due to the decrease in the number of
pirates worldwide....
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 10:21:07
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 10, 8:59 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> 1. What proportion of the religious right deny AGW?
> 2. What proportion of those who deny AGW are affiliated with the
> religious right?
Jesus H. Christ.
Please go for a ride. I'll pay.
Oh wait, I already did pay. So definitely go for a ride.
|
| |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 07:46:25
From: Rex Crater
Subject: Re: Global Warming â?~Greatest Scam in History'
|
Sven Nys did not win today. Therefore, global warming may has affected the
outcome of the cyclocross World Cup today in Pijnacker Nederlands. It's not
really global "warming." It's more like global tepidization.
<Davey@Crockett.Net > wrote in message news:87ve8az87m.fsf@azurservers.com...
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_founder_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm
> --
> Davey Crockett
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 22:10:07
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 10, 8:59 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:24 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 3:32 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Ah. With that heading, I thought you were pointing at Oklahoma Senator
> > > James Inhofe--but he uses the phrase, "greatest hoax ever perpetrated
> > > on the American people." He thinks that global warming is a nefarious
> > > creation of the United Nations and the "Liberals" to destroy the US
> > > economy and to initiate one-world government. Perhaps even more
> > > interestingly, the American religious right has latched onto the idea
> > > that any effort to recognize that global warming can be affected by
> > > human behavior is a denial of a Supreme Being.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Elements of the religious right claim that.
>
> > There are other elements that claim the opposite.
>
> You're right. I should have said "some." In any event, that raises two
> more questions.
>
> 1. What proportion of the religious right deny AGW?
> 2. What proportion of those who deny AGW are affiliated with the
> religious right?
>
> And it's sort of nostalgic seeing Ted Haggard cited as being an
> influential evangelical leader.
Dumbass -
Answer to question#1: if you read the article, it's 52%, up from 45%.
As for question #2, I don't know, but I'll guess that quite a bit of
it has to do with party ideologists.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 20:59:06
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 10, 8:24 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 3:32 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Ah. With that heading, I thought you were pointing at Oklahoma Senator
> > James Inhofe--but he uses the phrase, "greatest hoax ever perpetrated
> > on the American people." He thinks that global warming is a nefarious
> > creation of the United Nations and the "Liberals" to destroy the US
> > economy and to initiate one-world government. Perhaps even more
> > interestingly, the American religious right has latched onto the idea
> > that any effort to recognize that global warming can be affected by
> > human behavior is a denial of a Supreme Being.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Elements of the religious right claim that.
>
> There are other elements that claim the opposite.
You're right. I should have said "some." In any event, that raises two
more questions.
1. What proportion of the religious right deny AGW?
2. What proportion of those who deny AGW are affiliated with the
religious right?
And it's sort of nostalgic seeing Ted Haggard cited as being an
influential evangelical leader.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 20:24:53
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 10, 3:32 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2:49 am, <Da...@Crockett.Net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_chann...
>
> Ah. With that heading, I thought you were pointing at Oklahoma Senator
> James Inhofe--but he uses the phrase, "greatest hoax ever perpetrated
> on the American people." He thinks that global warming is a nefarious
> creation of the United Nations and the "Liberals" to destroy the US
> economy and to initiate one-world government. Perhaps even more
> interestingly, the American religious right has latched onto the idea
> that any effort to recognize that global warming can be affected by
> human behavior is a denial of a Supreme Being.
Dumbass -
Elements of the religious right claim that.
There are other elements that claim the opposite.
From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1491-2005Feb5.html
The Greening of Evangelicals
Christian Right Turns, Sometimes Warily, to Environmentalism
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page A01
SEATTLE -- Thanks to the Rev. Leroy Hedman, the parishioners at
Georgetown Gospel Chapel take their baptismal waters cold. The
preacher has unplugged the electricity-guzzling heater in the
immersion baptism tank behind his pulpit. He has also installed energy-
saving fluorescent light bulbs throughout the church and has placed
water barrels beneath its gutter pipes -- using runoff to irrigate the
congregation's all-organic gardens.
Such "creation care" should be at the heart of evangelical life,
Hedman says, along with condemning abortion, protecting family and
loving Jesus. He uses the term "creation care" because, he says, it
does not annoy conservative Christians for whom the word
"environmentalism" connotes liberals, secularists and Democrats.
"It's amazing to me that evangelicals haven't gone quicker for the
green," Hedman said. "But as creation care spreads, evangelicals will
demand different behavior from politicians. The Republicans should not
take us for granted."
There is growing evidence -- in polling and in public statements of
church leaders -- that evangelicals are beginning to go for the green.
Despite wariness toward mainstream environmental groups, a growing
number of evangelicals view stewardship of the environment as a
responsibility mandated by God in the Bible.
"The environment is a values issue," said the Rev. Ted Haggard,
president of the 30 million-member National Association of
Evangelicals. "There are significant and compelling theological
reasons why it should be a banner issue for the Christian right."
In October, the association's leaders adopted an "Evangelical Call to
Civic Responsibility" that, for the first time, emphasized every
Christian's duty to care for the planet and the role of government in
safeguarding a sustainable environment.
"We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to
steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we
are a part," said the statement, which has been distributed to 50,000
member churches. "Because clean air, pure water, and adequate
resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has
an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of
environmental degradation."
Signatories included highly visible, opinion-swaying evangelical
leaders such as Haggard, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Chuck
Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Some of the signatories are to
meet in March in Washington to develop a position on global warming,
which could place them at odds with the policies of the Bush
administration, according to Richard Cizik, the association's vice
president for governmental affairs.
Also last fall, Christianity Today, an influential evangelical
magazine, weighed in for the first time on global warming. It said
that "Christians should make it clear to governments and businesses
that we are willing to adapt our lifestyles and support steps towards
changes that protect our environment."
The magazine came out in favor of a global warming bill -- sponsored
by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) --
that the Bush administration opposed and the Republican-controlled
Senate defeated.
Polling has found a strengthening consensus among evangelicals for
strict environmental rules, even if they cost jobs and higher prices,
said John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied
Politics at the University of Akron. In 2000, about 45 percent of
evangelicals supported strict environmental regulations, according to
Green's polling. That jumped to 52 percent last year.
<snip ><end>
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 15:32:58
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 10, 2:49 am, <Da...@Crockett.Net > wrote:
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_chann...
Ah. With that heading, I thought you were pointing at Oklahoma Senator
James Inhofe--but he uses the phrase, "greatest hoax ever perpetrated
on the American people." He thinks that global warming is a nefarious
creation of the United Nations and the "Liberals" to destroy the US
economy and to initiate one-world government. Perhaps even more
interestingly, the American religious right has latched onto the idea
that any effort to recognize that global warming can be affected by
human behavior is a denial of a Supreme Being. Thus, even a discussion
of costs and benefits of amelioration is (and I kid you not) a form of
idol worship.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 14:17:20
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
|
On Nov 10, 1:53 pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Da...@Crockett.Net wrote:
> >http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_chann...
>
> He doesn't cite any sources. I think I'll continue to believe those who do.
Dumbass -
As you state, it's pretty much a matter of belief.
The analogy I like to think of w/ regards to attempting to show
someone the science of Global Warming is sorta like Darwinism vs.
Creationism. In order to accept Evolution, one has to believe in the
scientific method. Well, not everyone does, not even some people who
believe in Global Warming or Evolution.
By the Scientific Method, it is very probable that Darwin was correct
and that Global Warming is significantly caused by man-made sources,
but in neither one of those cases is it completely proven. No theory
is ever absolutely proven, they are only disproved.
So what are we left with? Another abortion argument, except this one
will have more and more evidence to analyze as time goes on.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 22:53:01
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Global Warming =?windows-1252?Q?=91Greatest_Scam_in_Hi?=
|
Davey@Crockett.Net wrote:
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_founder_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm
He doesn't cite any sources. I think I'll continue to believe those who do.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 14:15:34
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming ŒGreatest Scam in History'
|
In article <5pmnhtFs5l12U1@mid.individual.net >, Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Davey@Crockett.Net wrote:
> > http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_foun
> > der_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm
>
> He doesn't cite any sources. I think I'll continue to believe those who do.
http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/11/busting-through-bottom-of-barrel-im-not.html
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 19:41:30
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming =?windows-1252?Q?=91Greatest_Scam_in_Hi?=
|
Davey@Crockett.Net wrote:
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_founder_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm
I preferred "Piltdown Man".
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 12:03:34
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Global Warming ŒGreatest Scam in History'
|
In article <KPnZi.2213$ET.1724@trndny03 >,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> Davey@Crockett.Net wrote:
> > http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_foun
> > der_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm
>
>
> I preferred "Piltdown Man".
I'm trying to understand how the guy who founded the Weather Channel is in any way
qualified to speak with any authority on climate.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 17:46:34
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History'
|
<Davey@Crockett.Net > wrote in message news:87ve8az87m.fsf@azurservers.com...
> http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_founder_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm
> --
> Davey Crockett
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in
logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the
authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also
known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument
to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of
obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because
the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
--
JF
"A really great man is known by three signs,--generosity in the design,
humanity in the execution, and moderation in success."
- Karl Otto von Schonhausen Bismarck
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 11:57:56
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Global Warming â?~Greatest Scam in History'
|
"Jim Flom" <jim.flomREMOVE@telus.net > wrote in message
news:_7mZi.11420$8S5.4277@edtnps82...
> <Davey@Crockett.Net> wrote in message
> news:87ve8az87m.fsf@azurservers.com...
>> http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_founder_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm
>> --
>> Davey Crockett
>
> An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument
> in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the
> authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is
> also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam
> (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said
> it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a
> fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not
> follow from the credibility of the source.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
>
> --
> JF
To be fair, one has to look beyond the authority and at the facts that
led to his conclusion. That man's sensibilities are so finally tuned as
to record a reading of imminent disaster on the doomometer is a mere
spit in the ocean when considering the grand scale of the history of the
Earth.
Personally, it makes sense to conserve the Earth's resources and use
them as efficiently as possible but not to prevent a 1/2 degree
temperature rise (or some such) over the next century. That's just
didling in the noise.
Phil H
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 20:44:32
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: Global Warming â?~Greatest Scam in History'
|
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice > wrote...
>
> To be fair, one has to look beyond the authority and at the facts that led
> to his conclusion. That man's sensibilities are so finally tuned as to
> record a reading of imminent disaster on the doomometer is a mere spit in
> the ocean when considering the grand scale of the history of the Earth.
> Personally, it makes sense to conserve the Earth's resources and use them
> as efficiently as possible but not to prevent a 1/2 degree temperature
> rise (or some such) over the next century. That's just didling in the
> noise.
Global warming is the new helmet thread.
--
J "fifty is the new thirty" F
"A really great man is known by three signs,--generosity in the design,
humanity in the execution, and moderation in success."
- Karl Otto von Schonhausen Bismarck
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 17:38:31
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Global Warming =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E2=3F=7EGreatest_Scam_in_?=
|
Jim Flom wrote:
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote...
>> To be fair, one has to look beyond the authority and at the facts that led
>> to his conclusion. That man's sensibilities are so finally tuned as to
>> record a reading of imminent disaster on the doomometer is a mere spit in
>> the ocean when considering the grand scale of the history of the Earth.
>> Personally, it makes sense to conserve the Earth's resources and use them
>> as efficiently as possible but not to prevent a 1/2 degree temperature
>> rise (or some such) over the next century. That's just didling in the
>> noise.
>
> Global warming is the new helmet thread.
>
LOL!
Steve
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 22:55:12
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Global Warming =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E2=3F=7EGreatest_Scam_in_?=
|
Jim Flom wrote:
>
> Global warming is the new helmet thread.
>
Will people wear fewer helmets as the global temperature rises?
|
|
