To My Friends In South Texas This Evening

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:

formatting link

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk
Loading thread data ...

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?

Reply to
Leon

Reply to
Leon

What have you personally seen with your own eyes that has become a world problem in this situation.

What have you read?

Reply to
Leon

Amen!

Matt (mostly lurking)

Reply to
Matt

Exactly. And What may I ask has all this fuzzy feel good conservation done to fix the perceived problem? Noting.

Really and truly none of the global warming/climate change malarkey came about until we started trying to clean up the environment and stop air pollution. For hundreds of years a lot of wood was always being burned for cooking and heating, no global warming problem then.

Reply to
Leon

formatting link

Is there anything official from GISS publishing corrections to their

2008 report?
Reply to
Swingman

Threadjacking Attempt Eliminated.

Regards,

Tom Watson

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

As long as the rate of burning doesn't exceed the rate of growth, burning wood for energy is carbon neutral.

200 years ago the population of the planet was under a billion people. Now it's 6x that.

From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased by a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to population increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has increased roughly 4x over that period.

Chris

Reply to
Chris Friesen

formatting link

Yes:

formatting link
referenced from here:

formatting link

Reply to
Doug Winterburn

formatting link

formatting link

Let me rephrase Swing's question: Is there anything official from GISS publishing corrections to their 2008 report? Hopefully that translates the data numbers given into informational context? And that does not involve a right (or left) wing blog? criminy, jo4hn

Reply to
jo4hn

Beware the Yahoos, Googlectuals, WikiPaederasts and Bloglodytes.

Regards,

Tom Watson

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

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.

Reply to
jo4hn

formatting link

formatting link

If you look at the GISS temperature numbers, you'll find they exactly agree with the informational content of the blog. I can't find anything on the GISS site that acknowledges their booboo except the corrected temperature table.

Reply to
Doug Winterburn

Take a look at climate.nasa.gov. Study it at some length with as little prejudice as possible. Report back in a week. Do not cite wingnut blogs as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers. TIA,

Reply to
jo4hn

Difficult to make accurate comparisons without factoring in a whole bunch of data ... there were +/- 40 million buffalo here in the early

1800's. Grass eating ruminants, just these buffalo probably released more harmful greenhouse gases than the 300 million humans (divide by two because we all know ladies don't fart) here today. :)

Then again, with all the hot air, both "scientific" and otherwise, inflating this debate ... !

Direct to you from the United Nations, of all places:

formatting link
steak eaters better grab one while you can, before the EPA, which apparently no longer needs congressional approval to mandate "green" laws, joined with other green nazi's, like PITA, to make your steak a thing of the past.

Those dirty hippies, like the one who wrote "The Sheep Look Up", are looking more prescient all the time ...

Reply to
Swingman

formatting link

formatting link

Here is the GISS ranking I was looking for which does not involve a right or left wing blog:

formatting link

Reply to
Swingman

Nope! I want to see it not be told what I am seeing.

Reply to
Leon

That sounds lile a fuzzy feels good formula.

But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.

So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.

Reply to
Leon

Not to mention microwaves, fridges, stoves, televisions, computers etc., that didn't exist back then.

Just think of all the hot air that usenet causes. ;-)

Reply to
FrozenNorth

HomeOwnersHub website 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.