On 11/4/2015 1:42 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal
bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate
change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the
vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant
left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is
operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a
communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael
Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared
that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity
is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial
notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio
when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the
cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...


Oh ... geeze ... here we go again.



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

Tenure protects teachers run amok. Why is that a good thing?

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:16:19 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:


"Only things that help" is not an answer, and neither is doing nothing
and hoping we can cope.


So you are saying that doing feel good things that don't help, no
matter at what expense, is the answer?

An excellent example is the alternate energy scams. There are valid
reasons to use solar energy I have some collectors here but it should
not simply be because you can extract generous payments from unwilling
tax payers. No I did not take a dime from the government.
I still doubt it will make a damned bit of difference in climate
change.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:30:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Ahh, life in the libertarian bubble...don't do anything.

Are you just acting like you are obtuse or is it a reading
comprehension problem?
My point is the clear and present danger is not some theory about what
may happen in 100 years but a real debt problem that could affect the
whole world tomorrow.
Just look at how fast the markets crashed over a little dip in housing
prices. Within a couple of months, the banks didn't even think the
houses they were using for collateral were valuable enough to
foreclose on. The government's plan was to simply print more money to
cover the debt the bailout created.
I understand people like you see no problem with that but it is going
to blow up on all of us eventually.
The fact remains that the US is buried in debt and the left's answer
is to simply lift our credit limit without actually showing any
increase in income. That is exactly what caused the housing crash.


So, your solution for global warming is to adapt ourselves to a hotter
world (in other words, do nothing), and worry about the debt problem,
instead. I get it.

Is it unreasonable to worry about the imminent thing we can change and
plan to adapt to the thing we can't change.

In the short term, I'd be more worried about the decline of the middle
class in this country and the lack of upper mobility for those in the
lowest income levels. I think we'll have a violent revolution long
before the world roasts us alive or debt buries us.

Nothing would crush the middle class faster than an economic collapse.
Just another recession like we had in 2009 would be a disaster since
the government has pretty much emptied their gun.


Oh, increase in income. Yes, that would be nice. What's your proposal
for that? Get rid of environmental and food safety regs?

Where do you think the money will come from? Are you just going to
print some more?
When all of this shakes out, we will end up with Jimmy Carter style
"stagflation" where prices go up and income is still flat. There are
plenty of people (including Bernie) who say the middle class is still
reeling from that.

Justan Olphart wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:42 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal
bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate
change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the
vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant
left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is
operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a
communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael
Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared
that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity
is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial
notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio
when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the
cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...


Oh ... geeze ... here we go again.



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

Tenure protects teachers run amok. Why is that a good thing?


Friend who is a retired teacher said there should be tenure or union. Not
both.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:42:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

That is a great fairy tale and it might protect incompetent or child
molesting teachers but if you are endangering federal grants or going
against the grain of the administration, you will be gone one way or
another.
They might not fire you but you will not be working on much.

On 11/4/15 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:42:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

That is a great fairy tale and it might protect incompetent or child
molesting teachers but if you are endangering federal grants or going
against the grain of the administration, you will be gone one way or
another.
They might not fire you but you will not be working on much.



And you know this from your extensive personal experience at the
university level, eh?

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:09:44 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

The 3 digit IQ is not deciding elections.

No they are decided by 9 digit incomes.

wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:09:44 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

The 3 digit IQ is not deciding elections.

No they are decided by 9 digit incomes.


But they are recruiting 2 digit IQs. Harry is recruited.

On 11/4/15 3:30 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:09:44 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

The 3 digit IQ is not deciding elections.

No they are decided by 9 digit incomes.


But they are recruiting 2 digit IQs. Harry is recruited.


I assure you, Bilious, my IQ as tested is *at least* as high as yours.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:22:10 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:42:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

That is a great fairy tale and it might protect incompetent or child
molesting teachers but if you are endangering federal grants or going
against the grain of the administration, you will be gone one way or
another.
They might not fire you but you will not be working on much.



And you know this from your extensive personal experience at the
university level, eh?

You only need to look at the political uniformity in the university
system to draw that conclusion.