Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

Take a look at your last posting. Forty three words in one super long
disjointed sentence. Your postings are difficult to read and rather
cryptic. I wonder how you ever graduated from any school writing the way
you do.

I will not respond to your rantings until you learn to write.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Take a look at your last posting.

I will use smaller sentences.

Sequence one.

1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates.

2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates.

3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points.

4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about?

Sequence two.

1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons.

2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic.

3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists.

4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists.

5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign.

Sequence three.

1) Global warming is real.

2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus.

3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong.

4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial?

Sequence four.

1) Fossil fuel is limited.

2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear.

3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price.

4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve.

5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today.

6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum.

7) Hydroelectric damages cute fishees.

8) Nuclear is politically unpopular.

9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their
goals.

10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is
limited.

Conclusion.

It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about
what my stance is.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Take a look at your last posting.

I will use smaller sentences.
This fit of pique is unworthy of you.

Sequence one.

1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates.

2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates.

3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points.

4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about?
You know that the above are easily picked apart.

Sequence two.

1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons.

2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic.

3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists.
Citation please.

4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists.
Qualified sentence. Doesn't show relationship.

5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign.
I agree, but not in environmentalism. Follow the money.

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine...ism/dp/0312427
999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300208360&sr=1-1

Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of
Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans...lism/dp/B001P3
OMQY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301174163&sr=1-1

"A well-researched and readable case against free-trade orthodoxy."
--Business Week

"A lively addition to the protectionist side of the debate...well written
and far more serious than most anti-globalization gibberish."
-- New York Sun

"Bookstore shelves are loaded with offerings by economists and
commentators seeking to explain, in accessible prose, why
free-trade-style globalization is desirable and even indispensable for
countries the world over. Now comes the best riposte from the critics
that I have seen. Readers who are leery of open-market orthodoxy will
rejoice at the cogency of Bad Samaritans. Ha-Joon Chang has the
credentials -- he's on the economics faculty at Cambridge University --
and the storytelling skill to make a well-informed, engaging case
against the dogma propagated by globalization's cheerleaders. Believers
in free trade will find that the book forces them to recalibrate and
maybe even backpedal a bit....Chang's book deserves a wide readership for
illuminating the need for humility about the virtues of private markets
and free trade, especially in the developing world."
--Paul Blustein, Washington Post

"Lucid, deeply informed, and enlivened with striking illustrations,
this penetrating study could be entitled "economics in the real world."
Chang reveals the yawning gap between standard doctrines concerning
economic development and what really has taken place from the origins of
the industrial revolution until today. His incisive analysis shows how,
and why, prescriptions based on reigning doctrines have caused severe
harm, particularly to the most vulnerable and defenseless, and are
likely to continue to do so. He goes on to provide sensible and
constructive proposals, solidly based on economic theory and historical
evidence, as to how the global economy could be redesigned to proceed on
a far more humane and civilized course. And his warnings of what might
happen if corrective action is not taken are grim and apt."
- Noam Chomsky

"A smart, lively, and provocative book that offers us compelling new
ways of looking at globalization."
--Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics

(Available at better libraries near you.)

Sequence three.

1) Global warming is real.

2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus.
What do you call recent? What do you call concensus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong.
Across history, recent concensus in science has often offended dogma.

4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial?
The truth, or its best estimate, is always important.


Sequence four.

1) Fossil fuel is limited.

2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and

nuclear. Make an argument. What we've had so (nuclear ) far isn't
"Green".

3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price.

4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve.
Ask the Japanese about how expensive nuclear is.

5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today.
Planting a garden is good. It just won't feed you on the day that you
plant it.

6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum.
Happily, tidal action can be harnessed without harm to fishees.

7) Hydroelectric damages cute
edible
fishees.

8) Nuclear is politically unpopular.
You mean that those who may be affected by it, don't want it.

9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their
goals.
Spell it out, would you, please.

10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is
limited.
Developing green (sustainable) sources is good in any event.

Conclusion.

It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about
what my stance is.

We have a problem, let's just address the problem and not go
psychoanalytical on it.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause
What are you referring to here?
and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea.
Oh, come on, Doug. This is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't address
Climate Change.

And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

You're losing me too, Doug. Instead of attacking, perhaps you could
clarify, and refrain from attacks.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause
What are you referring to here?
and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea.
Oh, come on, Doug. This is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't address
Climate Change.

And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

You're losing me too, Doug. Instead of attacking, perhaps you could
clarify, and refrain from attacks.

Billy, are you changing your opinion about Doug being a good guy?

From his postings, he sounds just like my family members. One has to dig a
little deeper to reveal his true intentions on the environment of the
planet earth.

If Doug had anything to with the construction or inspections of
California's Nuclear Power Plants, I would be moving out of that state

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause
What are you referring to here?
and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea.
Oh, come on, Doug. This is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't address
Climate Change.

And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

You're losing me too, Doug. Instead of attacking, perhaps you could
clarify, and refrain from attacks.

Billy, are you changing your opinion about Doug being a good guy?

Even "good guys" can have bad days. I've too much history with Doug to
write him off easily. He can be a very thoughtful person.


From his postings, he sounds just like my family members. One has to dig a
little deeper to reveal his true intentions on the environment of the
planet earth.

If Doug had anything to with the construction or inspections of
California's Nuclear Power Plants, I would be moving out of that state
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:

Even "good guys" can have bad days. I've too much history with Doug to
write him off easily. He can be a very thoughtful person.

I have some reading on geological history. My major was Mathematics,
Computer Science with a little bit of Electrical Engineering. So I am not
by any means an expert on geology or Biology. I sometimes I take a first
thought route to problem solving and can make mistakes. If my reasoning is
flawed I will change it. By reading Doug's postings, He seems to be on the
Authoritative side where I am on the Anti-Authoritative side. I do not
trust those that speak in terms of absolutes. It is in my nature to be the
skeptic. Doug's last ranting is far from a thoughtful person.
Still this is usenet where all opinions can be expressed, even from my
rantings

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)