Pete C. wrote:

> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
> to support their claims.

Poor thing. Somebody took your brain and left you a vegetable.

On 2012-06-03 21:50:08 +0000, George M. Middius said:

> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
>> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
>> to support their claims.
>
> Poor thing. Somebody took your brain and left you a vegetable.

That somebody was American industry, their lobbyists and their radio &
TV puppets (Clear Channel and Fox). Propaganda really does work!

"gtr" > wrote in message news:2012060315535839216-xxx@yyyzzz...
> On 2012-06-03 21:50:08 +0000, George M. Middius said:
>
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
>>> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
>>> to support their claims.
>>
>> Poor thing. Somebody took your brain and left you a vegetable.
>
> That somebody was American industry, their lobbyists and their radio & TV
> puppets (Clear Channel and Fox). Propaganda really does work!
>

propaganda comes from all sides and in many flavors. stay alert!

gtr wrote:
>
> On 2012-06-03 21:50:08 +0000, George M. Middius said:
>
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >
> >> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
> >> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
> >> to support their claims.
> >
> > Poor thing. Somebody took your brain and left you a vegetable.
>
> That somebody was American industry, their lobbyists and their radio &
> TV puppets (Clear Channel and Fox). Propaganda really does work!

Apparently that propaganda really does work, their climate change
propaganda fits with what you want to believe so you don't put in the
effort to try to validate the claims. I on the other hand have spent a
fair amount of time searching for that elusive supporting data, looking
at NASA, NOAA and many other sites for hard data with sources, not just
reports making claims and assumptions with no supporting data. What I
found is that the data simply is not there to support anything but the
same climate change the planet has seen since day zero. Open your eyes
and research it for yourself don't blindly follow some climate change
preacher like the rest of the ignorant flock.

On 2012-06-04 00:23:16 +0000, Pete C. said:

> I on the other hand have spent a
> fair amount of time searching for that elusive supporting data, looking
> at NASA, NOAA and many other sites for hard data with sources, not just
> reports making claims and assumptions with no supporting data.

I spent a fair amount of time researching how much time you spent
researching and came to the conclusion that your conclusions are hardly
as convincing as the 90% of the specialists working in the field.

Not everybody who picks up a guitar and says "hell I can play better
than him", has evaluated things to my satisfaction.

> Open your eyes and research it for yourself don't blindly follow some
> climate change preacher like the rest of the ignorant flock.

One of the good things about the news, not the political opinion shows,
but the the kind called "journalism", is that their reports about the
actualities of the world are much more convincing than the material one
gets from political conduits. After all, everybody knows their job is
to contort information to support an ideology.

"Follow the money" is a good way of parsing out difficult information.
I don't really think that environmental group's quest, which according
to Rush Limbaugh, Fox and others is to "control people" seems very
believable. Just like the view that "terrorists just hate us for our
freedom" or that "feminists hate men", or that hetero marriage needs
some kind of "protection". None of this really seems to wash. That's
when ideology needs to make use of propaganda, and propaganda needs
sheep. We got 'em!

Myriad petroleum, mining and industrial concerns want to operate as
they always have, creating pollution as a side-effect, without being
financially limited or controlled in this. Now that makes sense to me
in a self-preserving, "follow the money" way of thinking.

Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year,
as a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages,
etc. What is their financial motive?

"gtr" > wrote in message news:2012060317460616209-xxx@yyyzzz...
> On 2012-06-04 00:23:16 +0000, Pete C. said:
>
>> I on the other hand have spent a
>> fair amount of time searching for that elusive supporting data, looking
>> at NASA, NOAA and many other sites for hard data with sources, not just
>> reports making claims and assumptions with no supporting data.
>
> I spent a fair amount of time researching how much time you spent
> researching and came to the conclusion that your conclusions are hardly as
> convincing as the 90% of the specialists working in the field.
>
> Not everybody who picks up a guitar and says "hell I can play better than
> him", has evaluated things to my satisfaction.
>
>> Open your eyes and research it for yourself don't blindly follow some
>> climate change preacher like the rest of the ignorant flock.
>
> One of the good things about the news, not the political opinion shows,
> but the the kind called "journalism", is that their reports about the
> actualities of the world are much more convincing than the material one
> gets from political conduits. After all, everybody knows their job is to
> contort information to support an ideology.
>
> "Follow the money" is a good way of parsing out difficult information. I
> don't really think that environmental group's quest, which according to
> Rush Limbaugh, Fox and others is to "control people" seems very
> believable. Just like the view that "terrorists just hate us for our
> freedom" or that "feminists hate men", or that hetero marriage needs some
> kind of "protection". None of this really seems to wash. That's when
> ideology needs to make use of propaganda, and propaganda needs sheep. We
> got 'em!
>
> Myriad petroleum, mining and industrial concerns want to operate as they
> always have, creating pollution as a side-effect, without being
> financially limited or controlled in this. Now that makes sense to me in a
> self-preserving, "follow the money" way of thinking.
>
> Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
> related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year, as
> a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages, etc.
> What is their financial motive?
>

funding.

Pete C. wrote:

> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
> to support their claims.

I'm reminded: Republicans eschew, on behalf of their evangelical
contingent, the age of the earth, they've rejected carbon dating to
help us get to some half-baked Biblical age of earth.

They reject all kinds of economic principles, always supporting the
view that shoveling money to their donors creates jobs. No statistics
support that. There is not an economic principle they haven't rejected
when it wasn't to their advantage. Similarly they endlessly reject
American history as proofs of anything: Stimulus got us out of a
Depression, for instance.

They reject the science of evolution. They reject statistics--note how
they rejected statistical sampling from the census, And reject any poll
that doesn't support their political intent. The rejection of science
is a defining aspect of their ideology.

So: Why would we consider their scientific evaluation of global warming data?

Pico Rico wrote:
>
> "gtr" > wrote in message news:2012060317460616209-xxx@yyyzzz...
> > On 2012-06-04 00:23:16 +0000, Pete C. said:
> >
> >> I on the other hand have spent a
> >> fair amount of time searching for that elusive supporting data, looking
> >> at NASA, NOAA and many other sites for hard data with sources, not just
> >> reports making claims and assumptions with no supporting data.
> >
> > I spent a fair amount of time researching how much time you spent
> > researching and came to the conclusion that your conclusions are hardly as
> > convincing as the 90% of the specialists working in the field.
> >
> > Not everybody who picks up a guitar and says "hell I can play better than
> > him", has evaluated things to my satisfaction.
> >
> >> Open your eyes and research it for yourself don't blindly follow some
> >> climate change preacher like the rest of the ignorant flock.
> >
> > One of the good things about the news, not the political opinion shows,
> > but the the kind called "journalism", is that their reports about the
> > actualities of the world are much more convincing than the material one
> > gets from political conduits. After all, everybody knows their job is to
> > contort information to support an ideology.
> >
> > "Follow the money" is a good way of parsing out difficult information. I
> > don't really think that environmental group's quest, which according to
> > Rush Limbaugh, Fox and others is to "control people" seems very
> > believable. Just like the view that "terrorists just hate us for our
> > freedom" or that "feminists hate men", or that hetero marriage needs some
> > kind of "protection". None of this really seems to wash. That's when
> > ideology needs to make use of propaganda, and propaganda needs sheep. We
> > got 'em!
> >
> > Myriad petroleum, mining and industrial concerns want to operate as they
> > always have, creating pollution as a side-effect, without being
> > financially limited or controlled in this. Now that makes sense to me in a
> > self-preserving, "follow the money" way of thinking.
> >
> > Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
> > related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year, as
> > a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages, etc.
> > What is their financial motive?
> >
>
> funding.

Funding and the related continued employment. They have convinced
themselves that lying or supporting the lies of others in the
organization in order to maintain employment is ok by convincing
themselves that the lies are in people's best interest, even if they are
lies.

gtr wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
> > change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
> > to support their claims.
>
> I'm reminded: Republicans eschew, on behalf of their evangelical
> contingent, the age of the earth, they've rejected carbon dating to
> help us get to some half-baked Biblical age of earth.

The liberals eschew, on behalf of their environmentalist contingent, the
lack of supporting data for the man made climate change conclusions...

You get the idea. Both wings reject hard facts in furtherance of their
beliefs and ideology. Those of us solidly in the middle as I am reject
both wings crap. Religion is fiction just as man made climate change is
fiction.

gtr wrote:

> Not everybody who picks up a guitar and says "hell I can play better
> than him", has evaluated things to my satisfaction.

That reminds me of a coworker I had once. We were talking about pro
tennis and the guy dissed Michael Chang, who at that time was ranked
in the top 10. "I could beat him! He's terrible!" Reality check
needed.

On 2012-06-04 00:51:25 +0000, Pico Rico said:

> "gtr" > wrote in message news:2012060317460616209-xxx@yyyzzz...
>> On 2012-06-04 00:23:16 +0000, Pete C. said:
>>
>>> I on the other hand have spent a
>>> fair amount of time searching for that elusive supporting data, looking
>>> at NASA, NOAA and many other sites for hard data with sources, not just
>>> reports making claims and assumptions with no supporting data.
>>
>> I spent a fair amount of time researching how much time you spent
>> researching and came to the conclusion that your conclusions are hardly
>> as convincing as the 90% of the specialists working in the field.
>>
>> Not everybody who picks up a guitar and says "hell I can play better
>> than him", has evaluated things to my satisfaction.
>>
>>> Open your eyes and research it for yourself don't blindly follow some
>>> climate change preacher like the rest of the ignorant flock.
>>
>> One of the good things about the news, not the political opinion shows,
>> but the the kind called "journalism", is that their reports about the
>> actualities of the world are much more convincing than the material one
>> gets from political conduits. After all, everybody knows their job is
>> to contort information to support an ideology.
>>
>> "Follow the money" is a good way of parsing out difficult information.
>> I don't really think that environmental group's quest, which according
>> to Rush Limbaugh, Fox and others is to "control people" seems very
>> believable. Just like the view that "terrorists just hate us for our
>> freedom" or that "feminists hate men", or that hetero marriage needs
>> some kind of "protection". None of this really seems to wash. That's
>> when ideology needs to make use of propaganda, and propaganda needs
>> sheep. We got 'em!
>>
>> Myriad petroleum, mining and industrial concerns want to operate as
>> they always have, creating pollution as a side-effect, without being
>> financially limited or controlled in this. Now that makes sense to me
>> in a self-preserving, "follow the money" way of thinking.
>>
>> Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
>> related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year,
>> as a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages,
>> etc. What is their financial motive?
>
> funding.

Fair enough, now finish the sentence. In what way is their funding
related to their findings as negative to industry? If their findings
related some other kind of way to you think we would should down
meteorological science. And why would that be?

That is, how is their funding predicated on the conclusions they are reaching?

On 2012-06-04 01:18:47 +0000, Pete C. said:

>>> Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
>>> related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year, as
>>> a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages, etc.
>>> What is their financial motive?
>>
>> funding.
>
> Funding and the related continued employment. They have convinced
> themselves that lying or supporting the lies of others in the
> organization in order to maintain employment is ok by convincing
> themselves that the lies are in people's best interest, even if they are
> lies.

So the reason isn't funding, it is their "psychology" that the people's
best interests are served by lying. That's the evil "liberal
principles" or "liberal ideology", so immediately you've stepped off
the funding bus, before it servedit's purpose.

Sorry, you're just not getting to the money.

On 2012-06-04 01:21:34 +0000, Pete C. said:

>>> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
>>> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
>>> to support their claims.
>>
>> I'm reminded: Republicans eschew, on behalf of their evangelical
>> contingent, the age of the earth, they've rejected carbon dating to
>> help us get to some half-baked Biblical age of earth.
>
> The liberals eschew, on behalf of their environmentalist contingent, the
> lack of supporting data for the man made climate change conclusions...

The "environmental contingent" is a non-profit operation. The "lack of
supporting data" is in fact the dominant scientific findings.

>
> You get the idea.

I do indeed: The rich and poor alike should have the god-given right to
sleep in a cardboard box under the freeway.

> Both wings reject hard facts in furtherance of their
> beliefs and ideology.

Not true. The left does not leverage their data on God and what god
wants. And as I state above, the Republicans are the ones that reject
science at every turn.

I can see we'e hit the repetitive point in this conversation. Also an
inevitable scientific reality.

gtr wrote:
>
> On 2012-06-04 01:18:47 +0000, Pete C. said:
>
> >>> Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
> >>> related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year, as
> >>> a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages, etc.
> >>> What is their financial motive?
> >>
> >> funding.
> >
> > Funding and the related continued employment. They have convinced
> > themselves that lying or supporting the lies of others in the
> > organization in order to maintain employment is ok by convincing
> > themselves that the lies are in people's best interest, even if they are
> > lies.
>
> So the reason isn't funding, it is their "psychology" that the people's
> best interests are served by lying. That's the evil "liberal
> principles" or "liberal ideology", so immediately you've stepped off
> the funding bus, before it servedit's purpose.
>
> Sorry, you're just not getting to the money.

Instead of sadly trying to twist what people are saying here, why don't
you spend a few hours researching to see if you can find any supporting
data for the man made climate change claims?

"gtr" > wrote in message news:2012060317561823604-xxx@yyyzzz...
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
>> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
>> to support their claims.
>
> I'm reminded: Republicans eschew, on behalf of their evangelical
> contingent, the age of the earth, they've rejected carbon dating to help
> us get to some half-baked Biblical age of earth.
>
> They reject all kinds of economic principles, always supporting the view
> that shoveling money to their donors creates jobs. No statistics support
> that. There is not an economic principle they haven't rejected when it
> wasn't to their advantage. Similarly they endlessly reject American
> history as proofs of anything: Stimulus got us out of a Depression, for
> instance.
>
> They reject the science of evolution. They reject statistics--note how
> they rejected statistical sampling from the census, And reject any poll
> that doesn't support their political intent. The rejection of science is a
> defining aspect of their ideology.
>
> So: Why would we consider their scientific evaluation of global warming
> data?

ALL Republicans? that is a might broad brush you are painting with fella.
And non-Republicans don't "reject" things as well? pfft.

George M. Middius wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made
>> climate change when confronted with the fact that there is little or
>> no evidence to support their claims.
>
> Poor thing. Somebody took your brain and left you a vegetable.

Is there salt on it?

On 2012-06-04 02:11:55 +0000, Pete C. said:

> gtr wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-06-04 01:18:47 +0000, Pete C. said:
>>
>>>>> Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
>>>>> related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year, as
>>>>> a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages, etc.
>>>>> What is their financial motive?
>>>>
>>>> funding.
>>>
>>> Funding and the related continued employment. They have convinced
>>> themselves that lying or supporting the lies of others in the
>>> organization in order to maintain employment is ok by convincing
>>> themselves that the lies are in people's best interest, even if they are
>>> lies.
>>
>> So the reason isn't funding, it is their "psychology" that the people's
>> best interests are served by lying. That's the evil "liberal
>> principles" or "liberal ideology", so immediately you've stepped off
>> the funding bus, before it servedit's purpose.
>>
>> Sorry, you're just not getting to the money.
>
> Instead of sadly trying to twist what people are saying here,

You haven't realistically validated your claim that the conspiracy is
driven by fudning. That's not twisting anything.

> €¦why don't you spend a few hours researching to see if you can find any
> supporting data for the man made climate change claims?

I have. But to do it in more depth, I'd have to be a researcher, I'm
not. Neither are you, so your opinions don't suffice for my research.

On 2012-06-04 02:56:10 +0000, Pico Rico said:

> "gtr" > wrote in message news:2012060317561823604-xxx@yyyzzz...
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
>>> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
>>> to support their claims.
>>
>> I'm reminded: Republicans eschew, on behalf of their evangelical
>> contingent, the age of the earth, they've rejected carbon dating to
>> help us get to some half-baked Biblical age of earth.
>>
>> They reject all kinds of economic principles, always supporting the
>> view that shoveling money to their donors creates jobs. No statistics
>> support that. There is not an economic principle they haven't rejected
>> when it wasn't to their advantage. Similarly they endlessly reject
>> American history as proofs of anything: Stimulus got us out of a
>> Depression, for instance.
>>
>> They reject the science of evolution. They reject statistics--note how
>> they rejected statistical sampling from the census, And reject any poll
>> that doesn't support their political intent. The rejection of science
>> is a defining aspect of their ideology.
>>
>> So: Why would we consider their scientific evaluation of global warming data?
>
> ALL Republicans? that is a might broad brush you are painting with
> fella. And non-Republicans don't "reject" things as well? pfft.

No, just the ones that represent Republican idelology in the media and
in congress. They are proud of marching lock step, a top down ideology.
When I contest some of these issues with Republican friends I find the
ideas they dogma they don't seem to agree with they simply won't talk
about. Hardly a vote of their "acceptance".

gtr wrote:

> >> Can you give me a believable reason that the overwhelming majority of
> >> related sciences would lie about scientific findings, year after year,
> >> as a conspiracy across myriad organizations, continents, languages,
> >> etc. What is their financial motive?
> >
> > funding.
>
> Fair enough, now finish the sentence. In what way is their funding
> related to their findings as negative to industry? If their findings
> related some other kind of way to you think we would should down
> meteorological science. And why would that be?
>
> That is, how is their funding predicated on the conclusions they are reaching?

I believe you've missed the subtext. You see, in the anti-science
worldview, any and all organizations that promulgate information are
automatically assumed to be biased. There is no such thing as
knowledge for the sake of knowledge because there is no actual
knowledge. (The word "science" comes from the Greek word for
knowledge.) The right-wing propaganda factories are in the business of
attacking the existence of knowledge. They are feeding ignorance to
the ignorant, and the ignorant have an insatiable appetite for it.
They can't hear often enough that every fact is a lie, every truth is
a distortion. That's how they justify the nonsense that "creationism"
and natural selection are "equally valid viewpoints" that explain
evolution.

On Jun 3, 7:23*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> gtr wrote:
>
> > On 2012-06-03 21:50:08 +0000, George M. Middius said:
>
> > > Pete C. wrote:
>
> > >> Sounds very much like the proponents of global warming/ man made climate
> > >> change when confronted with the fact that there is little or no evidence
> > >> to support their claims.
>
> > > Poor thing. Somebody took your brain and left you a vegetable.
>
> > That somebody was American industry, their lobbyists and their radio &
> > TV puppets (Clear Channel and Fox). *Propaganda really does work!
>
> Apparently that propaganda really does work, their climate change
> propaganda fits with what you want to believe so you don't put in the
> effort to try to validate the claims. I on the other hand have spent a
> fair amount of time searching for that elusive supporting data, looking
> at NASA, NOAA and many other sites for hard data with sources, not just
> reports making claims and assumptions with no supporting data. What I
> found is that the data simply is not there to support anything but the
> same climate change the planet has seen since day zero. Open your eyes
> and research it for yourself don't blindly follow some climate change
> preacher like the rest of the ignorant flock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

On 2012-06-04 15:26:18 +0000, Ernest Dotson said:

>> Apparently that propaganda really does work, their climate change
>> propaganda fits with what you want to believe so you don't put in the
>> effort to try to validate the claims. I on the other hand have spent a
>> fair amount of time searching for that elusive supporting data, looking
>> at NASA, NOAA and many other sites for hard data with sources, not just
>> reports making claims and assumptions with no supporting data. What I
>> found is that the data simply is not there to support anything but the
>> same climate change the planet has seen since day zero. Open your eyes
>> and research it for yourself don't blindly follow some climate change
>> preacher like the rest of the ignorant flock.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

Hey--Thanks for that!