On 11/4/15 3:44 PM, wrote:
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.


Oh. For a moment there, I thought you were basing your opinion on
something tangible.

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

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's what the book says, reality can be quite different however.
Many researchers depend on grant money, otherwise their whole position
disappears. Many of those grants come from governmental sources like
the National Science Foundation and have to be vigorously championed
every year by the entire institution. It is also well known that life
can become very difficult for those tenured academics who swim
upstream against the opinion of their colleagues and administration.

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

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?

===

I have had experience at the university level (Cornell, High Energy
Physics) and Greg is right on the money. Many of our top people spent
much of their time ensuring the ongoing flow of grant money. Careers
are made and lost depending on the outcome.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:03:25 -0500, wrote:

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.

===

That's all true but Harry would probably welcome the opportunity to
overthrow the establishment.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:37:51 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:30:39 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 11/4/2015 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.

$Al Gore$

Al Gore is just one of the many who has found a way to monetize this
fear with the "cap and trade" scam. His company is selling the snake
oil called carbon credits. That is basically brokering 3d world
dictators selling trees they don't own and can't really protect, to
gullible people in the 1st world to make them feel better about their
energy use. It has no effect except to raise prices.

There are a whole lot of stupid liberals out there giving Gore and crew millions of
dollars in their quest to 'feel better'. I'm sure Krause has a bit more sense, but
I'm also sure he wouldn't put down Gore for the lying and conniving he's done to rob
the masses.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:52:56 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:58:49 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:20:02 -0500, "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.

There is plenty of science that demonstrates that CO2 levels have
risen because of man but it seems to be the rise of agriculture as
much as anything else they have proven. This is an 8000 year trend and
tracks population as closely as any other metric.

Nuclear war will fix it but that may not be the way we want to go. ;-)



What's the libertarian approach? Do nothing?

Only do things that help. Snake oil like carbon credits and ethanol
don't help anything but the bottom line of the people who sell it.

We should be figuring what we are going to do in a warmer world, not
deluding ourselves that we can change it.
That is still far from the biggest danger we face. We have people like
you wringing their hands about global warming that may affect our
great grandchildren and ignoring the debt bubble that could crush the
world economy in a matter of weeks.
It certainly appears that the resulting nuclear war seems to be the
democratic plan for global warming.

Now you're sounding like Bjørn Lomborg. The Democrats walked out of the hearing when
he made his presentation after Gore to the Senate committee.

"...he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and
policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal
impact on the world’s rising temperature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

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

On 11/4/15 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:56:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:58:49 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:20:02 -0500, "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.

There is plenty of science that demonstrates that CO2 levels have
risen because of man but it seems to be the rise of agriculture as
much as anything else they have proven. This is an 8000 year trend and
tracks population as closely as any other metric.

Nuclear war will fix it but that may not be the way we want to go. ;-)



What's the libertarian approach? Do nothing?

Only do things that help. Snake oil like carbon credits and ethanol
don't help anything but the bottom line of the people who sell it.

We should be figuring what we are going to do in a warmer world, not
deluding ourselves that we can change it.
That is still far from the biggest danger we face. We have people like
you wringing their hands about global warming that may affect our
great grandchildren and ignoring the debt bubble that could crush the
world economy in a matter of weeks.
It certainly appears that the resulting nuclear war seems to be the
democratic plan for global warming.


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.

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.

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

Does the word 'adapt' mean 'do nothing', or are you just a stupid f**k?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:44:07 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 11/4/2015 1:30 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:56:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:58:49 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:20:02 -0500, "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.

There is plenty of science that demonstrates that CO2 levels have
risen because of man but it seems to be the rise of agriculture as
much as anything else they have proven. This is an 8000 year trend
and
tracks population as closely as any other metric.

Nuclear war will fix it but that may not be the way we want to go.
;-)



What's the libertarian approach? Do nothing?

Only do things that help. Snake oil like carbon credits and ethanol
don't help anything but the bottom line of the people who sell it.

We should be figuring what we are going to do in a warmer world, not
deluding ourselves that we can change it.
That is still far from the biggest danger we face. We have people like
you wringing their hands about global warming that may affect our
great grandchildren and ignoring the debt bubble that could crush the
world economy in a matter of weeks.
It certainly appears that the resulting nuclear war seems to be the
democratic plan for global warming.


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.

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.

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

You liberals screwed up the economy. You liberals screwed up the
healthcare system. You liberals are promoting gayism and abortion. You
liberals are encouraging illegal immigration. You liberals won't keep
your promise to get out of the middle east. And now you want to ****
with mother nature. No way Jose. Viva la revolution.

In the old days, in the Army, we would say, "**** a bunch of liberals!"

I wonder if they still say that?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:58:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/4/2015 12:19 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 12:06 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


I guess the rise of man and agriculture stopped the ice age 10,000 years
ago.


How could that be possible when Dr. Ben believes "creation" didn't
happen that far in the past?


Let's keep it honest and accurate, shall we?

Carson has never made a claim as to *when" mankind was created.
In fact, here's a direct quote by him:

" -- and I’m not a hard and fast person who says the Earth is only 6,000
years old -- "

and, referencing the Bible:

“It says, in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth,” “It
doesn’t say when He created them except for "in the beginning."

BTW, Carson *does* believe in evolution, but not on the grand scale as
proposed by Darwin. He claims that according to the Bible each thing
brought forth was after its own kind. Evolutionary changes *within*
each species has occurred to adapt to changing climates and/or
environments. He has also stated, "But in no way has a species evolved
into another species".

This certainly isn't the view of someone who thinks life on earth is
only 6 or 10 thousand years old.

Gotta keep the liberal smear machine honest once in a while.....

Have you ever heard the term 'ingrained'? Do you think lying could be as ingrained as
racism?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:24:46 -0500, "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.


Hey! It's you guys that keep him at it!

He can't sit back and laugh at the 'court jester' you and Greg make of him (and
Bill), so he keeps up his same old bull**** responses.

Seriously!
--

Ban idiots, not guns!