To My Friends In South Texas This Evening

Page 3 of 10  
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:58:21 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin

Nasa is to skeptics what Fox News is to liberals, Bawb. <sigh>
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL. for certain Houston got warmer in the 90's. But that was a slight average temperature deviation to the norm. Now we are back on track with cooler summers and colder winters.
And to top it all in reference to you mentioning the Medieval period, who is to say that if the earth were to get warmer that that would not be a good thing. Why is the temperature right now the optimum temp, why not 1 or 5 degrees warmer?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote:

Would you mind sharing your vetted source you used to reach your observations?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about you show me scientific data from 800 years ago, and all years since. Then let's see what the computer spits out. "Normal" weather patterns run longer than what we have data for.
Global warming, climate changes, what ever todays click is was not a such a concern before money was involved, or before scientists had to come up with derived answers to justify the billions in research.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote:

Interesting comment but how does it provide a vetted source to support your previous observation?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

One doesn't need a "vetted source" to see that the glaciation cycle runs on a timeframe approximately 30,000 times longer than that on which the "global warming" models are based. The ice core data is well known.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:09:51 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"

"I don't have enough data." "Well make it available, damnit!"
Good one, Lew. ;) Here are more books. (Got Huber yet?)
_The Skeptical Environmentalist_ by Bjorn Lomborg Or his newer title, _Cool It_, which I haven't read.
_Earth Report 2000_ by Ronald Bailey (ed) and other experts
_Meltdown_ by Patrick J. Michaels Climatologist fed up with the politics of AGWK
_The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_ by Christpher C. Horner
_Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity_ by John Stossel (chapter on AGWK)
_Terrestrial Energy_ by William Tucker, 2008 A very good & fairly neutral book!
_Hard Green_ by Peter Huber This is a MUST READ title for everyone, pro or con AGWK.
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

Or, for something that reads like a novel, STATE OF FEAR by Michael Chrichton (Andromeda Strain, Congo, Eaters of the Dead, Great Train Robbery, Jurassic Park, Lost World, Next, Prey, Rising Sun, Sphere, Terminal Man, Timeline, and others).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:59:33 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"

Let's put it this way: Anthropogenic Global Warming(kumbaya), as warned about by the alarmists, is a myth. Most of us realize that the Earth is coming out of an ice age and has been slowly warming, but not at anywhere _near_ the rate the alarmists spew.
Lew, see if your local library has a copy of Peter Huber's _Hard Green_. It will likely give you a fresh perspective on what we humans deem important and how the "Green" movement is affecting us, both positively and negatively. It's an important book and I hope you do read it.
I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now. <sigh>
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green" project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional construction projects.
.... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy, self congratulatory, and without a clue!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I may as well jump into this discussion, also. I'm not knowledgeable with facts, so lets speculate some more. How will the world end? http://www.endofworld.net /
Sonny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Badly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this. There are two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works, and teleologists -- those who say that the universe is an ideal place. From what I read: "More or less, it exists so that we humans can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen."
<http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/
The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter persuasion. They don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked before -- it just wasn't done correctly, they are going to do it correctly. If the idea of a "green" economy feels good, by golly, it will be good. Ignore those niggling little details like more waste or less available resourced -- by golly it FEELS good!
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The philosophical opponent of Materialism is Idealism, not Teleology. It is typical of the WikiPaederasts among us to create confusion where none has previously existed.
If you want to wallow in the teleological, look into Intelligent Design theory, which is its true home.
You need to stop reading shit.
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:07:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita

Regards,
Tom Watson http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

And if you're going to scold people publicly, do so honestly. Only some portion of the ID movement is necessarily driven from its assumed teleology. It may interest you to know that not all, or even most IDers are of the Rev. Billybob Swampwater variety. There are rather erudite and thoughtful critiques within ID about the philosophy of science and the (philosophical) limits of sense-reason and materialism. There are also some interesting scientific (as currently constituted) work being done among IDers. Their greatest sin is that they do not distinguish well between their philosophy of- and their practice of- science, which makes them kind of opaque to read and hard to follow.
Aristotle's problems never got fully resolved - Not by him, not by the Scholastics, not by the Moors, not by the Enlightenment, not by Rand - That's why these questions about the relationship between epistemology and metaphysics keep showing up. The fact that modern materialists have deluded themselves into believing that sense-reason answers all interesting questions doesn't change the fact that humans have a whole set of really interesting questions on which sense-reason must necessarily be silent. Pity its high priests aren't intellectually honest enough to be similarly still when they're out of their element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:53:41 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
Threadjacking Attempt Eliminated.
Regards,
Tom Watson http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:28:36 -0500, the infamous Tom Watson

Just plonk him as the rest of us have, Tawmy. It's good for the soul.
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global warming", that the problem will go away. And further that there never was a problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow. Thank you for clearing that up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity and using models that have not been validated to support their politicking. There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our society--trusting anyone who claims to be a "scientist" without question. Most sciences are in their infancy--the only ones with any real maturity are physics and chemistry, with biology getting there. Climatology is very immature and basing social policy on its models is about as wise as basing social policy on the ravings of alchemists or astrologers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Is that "scientism" or the opposite? I am getting a lot of the latter from the right wingers. Oh and your last sentence is just plain ignorant meanness and bespeaks much of you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.