Global Warming The debbil made me do it

Dan wrote in news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.

Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.

Took the wods tight out of my mouth.


Good luck now.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.
Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.

Took the wods tight out of my mouth.

Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed

Talk-n-Dog wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.
Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.

Took the wods tight out of my mouth.

Get your RRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr fixed


That finge is shote than the est.


Bertie

"Dan" wrote:

Is this ecologically unsound?

I know it's been a few hundred posts back, but I am far from arguing
for unmitigated plowing of the ecosystem. What I have been arguing is
that the incessant over-the-top predictions of calamity are not proven
or assumed by --their own experts --, and that much of the hysteria
is driven by politicians and other hucksters who see opportunity ripe
for a power grab.

Jeez; I got no quarrel with that.

Anyone who makes up his mind on this subject solely by listening to Al Gore
or James Inhofe is just being lazy--or partisan to the point of debility.

My beef is against the campaign of disinformation that is trying to make it
all go away by shooting the messenger: science. Consider one of the charges
one hears repeated over and over, "The scientists can't be believed; they're
all lying to get paid." What becomes of our culture if this idea becomes
conventional wisdom?

On Mar 11, 2:03 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

Anyone who makes up his mind on this subject solely by listening to Al Gore
or James Inhofe is just being lazy--or partisan to the point of debility.

My beef is against the campaign of disinformation that is trying to make it
all go away by shooting the messenger: science. Consider one of the charges
one hears repeated over and over, "The scientists can't be believed; they're
all lying to get paid." What becomes of our culture if this idea becomes
conventional wisdom?

In all fairness -- plenty of "scientists" have been paid to lie or
support some position. This is no revelation.

Case in point -- Jarvik. Anyone who saw those ads and knew anything
about him knew they were intentionally misleading.

We are bombarded by "scientists" proclaiming all sorts of nonsense.

The anti-nuke crowd in the '80s was the genesis of this phenomenon --
groups of "scientists" speaking on things they weren't necessarily
qualified to pontificate upon. Yet they did, ad naseum.

[Background: The "issue" in the 80s was US deployment of new
technology arms, not whether nuclear weapons were harmful if used. The
"scientists" demanded that the US unilaterally disarm, assuming that
the Soviets would follow suit. This only reinforced the perception of
"scientist's" naivety, further reducing their potential for swaying
the internal debate]

Whenever we hear about GW, the proponents always quote their pod or
batch or covey of scientists, when further study find the majority are
specialists in something far removed from macro- and paleo-
climatology.

And you wonder why our "culture" is wary of "scientific
pronouncements"?

And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Dan

"Dan" wrote:


And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think
tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for
instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know*
they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters
of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far,
no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW.

This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of
the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the
same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get
creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily
or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are
successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox,
et al. continue to give them time.

"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13td079oh0skja3
@news.supernews.com:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:


Dan wrote:

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

Dan, you are behind the PC power curve. It is now global "climate
change" rather than global warming. The evidence that global
warming
is
starting to ebb is mounting and the fanatics need to stay ahead of
the
data so that they can claim there were right no matter which way the
temperature trends.


Good grief.


How does a so called 'mind' come to operate in this fashion? How is
such
damage done?

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk
radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.


It could make one despair if one didn;'t find it entertaining on some
level.


Bertie