In article <b5b4685f.0312010821.5082d9b@posting.google.com> ,
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<3FC91DFC.E1363976@mindspring.com>...
>> z wrote:
>>
>> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
>> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
>> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
>> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
>> > plodding around on the planet?
>>
>> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and
nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
>> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is
more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
>> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate
is a subject to long term trends that are the
>> result of many factors which are not well understood?
>
>Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
>scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
>track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
>proposal.

A total, flat-out lie.


>And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
>from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
>the corporations' messages;

Which is why research sponsored by industry is suspect.


>they just don't have the funding that the
>NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
>federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
>come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
>something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
>but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
>..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
>runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
>mentioning him by name.

Uh, most of those agencies and articles do reference the IPCC report.

 

In article <b5b4685f.0312010821.5082d9b@posting.google.com> ,
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<3FC91DFC.E1363976@mindspring.com>...
>> z wrote:
>>
>> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
>> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
>> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
>> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
>> > plodding around on the planet?
>>
>> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and
nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
>> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is
more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
>> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate
is a subject to long term trends that are the
>> result of many factors which are not well understood?
>
>Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
>scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
>track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
>proposal.

A total, flat-out lie.


>And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
>from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
>the corporations' messages;

Which is why research sponsored by industry is suspect.


>they just don't have the funding that the
>NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
>federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
>come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
>something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
>but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
>..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
>runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
>mentioning him by name.

Uh, most of those agencies and articles do reference the IPCC report.

 

In article <b5b4685f.0312010821.5082d9b@posting.google.com> ,
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<3FC91DFC.E1363976@mindspring.com>...
>> z wrote:
>>
>> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
>> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
>> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
>> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
>> > plodding around on the planet?
>>
>> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and
nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
>> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is
more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
>> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate
is a subject to long term trends that are the
>> result of many factors which are not well understood?
>
>Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
>scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
>track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
>proposal.

A total, flat-out lie.


>And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
>from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
>the corporations' messages;

Which is why research sponsored by industry is suspect.


>they just don't have the funding that the
>NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
>federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
>come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
>something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
>but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
>..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
>runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
>mentioning him by name.

Uh, most of those agencies and articles do reference the IPCC report.

 

In article <SNLyb.60941$t01.26184@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0312010806.78d80d53@posting.google. com...
>> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>> > > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn
>control
>> > over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as
>a
>> > way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
>> > global warming wasn't
>> > available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it
>so
>> > they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
>> >
>> > Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
>> > reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist
>ideals.
>> > They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they
>choose.
>> > They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously
>30
>> > years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
>> > concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant
>bastards
>> > the better off we'll all be.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>
>This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side of
>morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree with
>the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to) then
>you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
>like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.

Spoken like a good little creationist.

>
>The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>corporations".
>
>
And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****. Want
to call names? OK.

 

In article <SNLyb.60941$t01.26184@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0312010806.78d80d53@posting.google. com...
>> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>> > > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn
>control
>> > over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as
>a
>> > way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
>> > global warming wasn't
>> > available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it
>so
>> > they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
>> >
>> > Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
>> > reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist
>ideals.
>> > They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they
>choose.
>> > They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously
>30
>> > years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
>> > concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant
>bastards
>> > the better off we'll all be.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>
>This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side of
>morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree with
>the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to) then
>you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
>like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.

Spoken like a good little creationist.

>
>The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>corporations".
>
>
And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****. Want
to call names? OK.

 

In article <SNLyb.60941$t01.26184@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0312010806.78d80d53@posting.google. com...
>> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>> > > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn
>control
>> > over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as
>a
>> > way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
>> > global warming wasn't
>> > available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it
>so
>> > they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
>> >
>> > Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
>> > reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist
>ideals.
>> > They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they
>choose.
>> > They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously
>30
>> > years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
>> > concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant
>bastards
>> > the better off we'll all be.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>
>This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side of
>morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree with
>the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to) then
>you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
>personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
>like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.

Spoken like a good little creationist.

>
>The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>corporations".
>
>
And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****. Want
to call names? OK.

 

In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
>> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
>> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
>> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
>> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
>> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
>> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
>> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> > government.
>>
>> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>>
>>
>Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>line at the clinic and hope for decent care.

As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
either go bankrupt or do without any care?

>
>This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare, Food,
>etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you go,
>the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one need
>to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>
>

 

In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
>> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
>> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
>> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
>> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
>> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
>> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
>> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> > government.
>>
>> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>>
>>
>Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>line at the clinic and hope for decent care.

As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
either go bankrupt or do without any care?

>
>This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare, Food,
>etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you go,
>the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one need
>to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>
>

 

In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
>> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
>> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
>> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
>> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
>> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
>> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
>> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> > government.
>>
>> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>>
>>
>Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>line at the clinic and hope for decent care.

As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
either go bankrupt or do without any care?

>
>This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare, Food,
>etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you go,
>the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one need
>to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>
>

 

In article <4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>>(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>>supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>>money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>>line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>
>Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>license.

That's a lie. That was never, ever part of any proposal. The plan was
similar to Canada's -- a single payer, with anyone being able to purchase
additional private insurance. What was banned was selling insurance that
covered the SAME thing the government plan would already cover.

>A true utopia.
>>
>>This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare, Food,
>>etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you go,
>>the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one need
>>to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>