Global Warming The debbil made me do it

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what happened
when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up against
well-financed, fervent opposition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.


Bertie

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else


Jay would have burned him at the stake as well. No extra charge.

bertie

On Mar 12, 3:06 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

Do you always write in Haikus?

Just wondering....

In article ,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 12, 3:06 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

Do you always write in Haikus?

tankas for the memories

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22...
There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what happened
when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up against
well-financed, fervent opposition.

Not analogous.

Copernicus was opposed by the Church according to its dogma.

The consensus on AGW grows out of research conducted independently by
thousands of scientists using the modern scientific method.

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books to
perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

"Dan Luke" wrote in
:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22...
There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

Not analogous.

Copernicus was opposed by the Church according to its dogma.


Xactly. hijacking Copernicus for their own ends in this argument is akin to
saying that Jim Morrison is the father of christian music



Bertie

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.