Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:47:04 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:

One human life is (intrinsically) more valuable than ANY amount of money
or material things. This category, of course, includes pets, livestock,
and wild animals.

That is an opinion based on personal values. It cannot have any basis in
fact, and I'm sure a fair percentage of the population of the world
would disagree. I don't even agree that a human life has intrinsic
value; rather, it is valued by its internal world view and by the value
placed on it by others. I believe that some lives have negative value:
they harm me, or they harm many people.

It's better to say that the value of a human life is "priceless" - we
cannot put a monetary value on a human life.


In fact, the notion that animals are "things" is also a statement of
values, not fact. I don't share it. I would not offer the life of my dog
to save the life of a stranger. I place more personal value on my dog
than I do on most people.

Is that because your dog is a living creature, or is it because you
value your dog so much?

Your house is a thing, right? A big and important thing but still a thing.
Would you offer your house to save the life of a stranger? I believe most
people would not do that.

Different people have different values. You
certainly don't need to respect those values, but you do need to respect
the right to hold different values.
_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:44 am, "
wrote:

Mass starvation? BS. The temperate climate regions best suited for
crops will simply move North to Canada and Siberia.

But there's bugger-all good soil in those parts of Canada and Siberia,
since it's been scraped off the bedrock by glaciers and redeposited in
what are currently the prime agricultural areas further south.

Tom

On Oct 18, 5:25*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:46:04 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
LOL. I am a lawyer dipstick. What you know of the law could be put in
a thimble.

So not only do you put yourself at risk for libel, you would also face
disbarment. However, if you're a lawyer, it's no longer a case of
ignorance. So that just leaves stupidity. Too bad... ignorance can be
corrected.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Pathetic--go play with your dog

On Oct 18, 5:40*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:53:36 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
You really think we can predict the weather for the next 200 years??
Pathetic.

I didn't say that.

The computer weather models are no better than cosmology computer
models--subject to dramatic changes to fit evolving data. Or perhaps
you think we now *know" all there is to know about cosmology??

I didn't say that.

Remember the dire predictions of the "coming ice age"; "The Population
Bomb", etc etc??--Malthus would have been proud of you.

We learn more, our ideas evolve (and usually improve). Are you saying
that we're crazy to believe the world is round, because not that long
ago people thought it was flat? And Malthus would seem to have been
correct- there's nothing to indicate the world isn't heading in that
direction. Only the time frame developed in the 1970s is wrong, because
the models were too simplistic.

Exactly how much do you claim ocean levels have risen in the last 10
years? 20 years? You pick the time frame??

In the last 10 years, about 30 mm. In the last 20 years, about 55 mm.
The current rate is about 3.3 mm per year. This will increase with the
lost of ice from Greenland, and probably from Antarctica.

Did you know Greenland was farmed in historical times? *Without a
"collapse of civilization?

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. And civilization did collapse there.
Nothing is left of the farming communities from 1000 years ago. That's a
collapse due to changing climate.

What in the world do you do for a living? I would like to put your
nutty ideas in context.

I'm a physicist. I did well in the past with a company that designed and
manufactured surgical machines for ophthalmologists. These days, I only
take on projects that interest me. I design custom astronomical
instruments for professional observatories, I design autoguider systems
for satellites, I write some astronomical software, I do some web design
and graphic arts work. Without pay, I work with the Denver Museum of
Nature and Science, and schools around Colorado, to monitor and study
meteors.

Hope that helps with the context.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

You are no physicist with your lowly BS--actually you are full of BS

On Oct 19, 4:44*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,



wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:32=A0am, Chris L Peterson

You should study up on law a little, too. You are committing libel here,
by accusing me of saying something that I did not say. Your action is
subject to legal action if I were so inclined; at the least, its highly
uncivil. Or maybe you simply lack the education to understand the role
of quotes in English. What's it going to be... uncivil and libelous, or
uneducated and stupid? Decisions, decisions.

What I said was that the collapse of civilization [from climate change]
is a very real possibility. That's a very different statement than what
you have attributed to me. Civilizations _have_ collapsed due to climate
shift: the Mayans (possibly by their own actions), the Anasazi, ancient
Greenlanders, and others. Modern societies in Africa have arguably
devolved to barbarism because of environmental strains. A
There is no doubt- no doubt at all- that the collapse of civilization is
a possibility that comes with global climate change. Nobody can put an
accurate number to the likelihood that this will happen; right now it's
probably a small number. But the ramifications are so negative that only
a fool would ignore the possibility.

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

LOL. I am a lawyer dipstick. What you know of the law could be put in
a thimble.

Talk to a lawyer--if you know one--he will laugh in your face.

Such a lawyer won't last long as a lawyer ..... laughing your customer
in his face is an efficient way to make sure you won't have any
customers in the future. *If the lawyer think his customer is completely
wrong, there are more polite ways to tell the customer so than laughing
in his face...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, *Grev Turegatan 40, *SE-114 38 Stockholm, *SWEDEN
e-mail: *pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: * *http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Not "customer" but "client". And when I get a dipstick client, I send
him on his way.

I make a lot of money for whatever that is worth and have cases of
mine cited in law school textbooks.

Most of this crowd is clueless however but fun to tweak because they
get so worked up when you dare to question their BS.

On Oct 19, 5:14*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:46:26 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
And the notion that any sea level rise will occur virtually overnight
producing coastal flooding" is laughable and pathetic--you can't be
that dumb, can you?

Who said anything about "overnight"?

The Hollywood movie "The Day After Tomorrow" did. *Apparently, "M104galaxy"
is taking the Hollywood movies too seriously....



The ocean has risen over the last
century, and we're paying a price for it now. An inch or two is all it
takes to make the difference between minor damage and near total
destruction from a storm surge. The ocean doesn't have to physically
rise over your house for it to have a major impact on you if you're
living on a coastline.

The most conservative models predict a sea level rise over the next
century of the better part of a meter. And a wise planner doesn't bet on
the most conservative estimate. It is near certainty that many coastal
areas are facing serious problems from ocean level increases in the near
future.
_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, *Grev Turegatan 40, *SE-114 38 Stockholm, *SWEDEN
e-mail: *pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: * *http://stjarnhimlen.se/

so you claim "coasting flooding" will take place with sea levels
rising at a few mm's per year. Interesting.

"Coastal flooding was Petersen's term, BTW.

On Oct 19, 5:44*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
You really think we can predict the weather for the next 200 years??
Pathetic.

No-one has claimed to be able to predict the weather for the next 200
years! *And you, Mr Ignorant, need to educate yourself about the difference
between "cilmate" and "weather" .... yes, there is a difference! *You
cannot predict the weather even one single year into the future. *Yet,
you are able to tell, with an extremely high degree of certainty, that
the next summer will be warmer than the next winter .... how come if
one cannot predict the weather? *Because we can predict the climate
much better than we can predict the weather....

The computer weather models are no better than cosmology computer
models--subject to dramatic changes to fit evolving data. Or perhaps
you think we now *know" all there is to know about cosmology??

No-one has ever claimed we know everything there is to know. *But
do you really think that, just because there are holes in our knowledge,
we should completely ignore what we DO know?

In your private life, do you have any insurances? *Life insurance?
Health insurance? *Home insurance? *Car insurance? *Insurance of
anything else? *I believe you do have at least some insurances. *But
why? *Nobody can, with absolute certainty, predict that you will
die young, get seriously ill, get your home burglarized or destroyed,
or get your car stolen or damaged --- so don't you think all these
insurances you take are just a big waste of your money? *You should
cancel all your insurances immediately!!! *After all, nobody can prove
that you won't do fine without any of them ..... right?

You can view the actions against the global warming as a kind of insurance.
It's true we don't have complete knowledge about what will happen. *But
that implies we also cannot tell with certainty that nothing serious
will happen. *Our best studies, with the uncertainties that all studies
always have, say that the global warming most likely will have serious
consequences we do not wish. *Your response is "Since these studies aren't
completely 100% certain, I ignore them and hope that they are wrong, even
though they probably are right to great parts" - do you think such a response
is sensible? *If so, do you act similarily with e.g. your life insurance and
your health insurance ("since nobody can prove with 100% certainty that
I will get seriously ill or die young, I won't take any of these
insurances") ? * If so, you're at least consistent, although consistently
stupid....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, *Grev Turegatan 40, *SE-114 38 Stockholm, *SWEDEN
e-mail: *pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: * *http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Priorities son, priorities. For a fraction of the $$ spent "combating"
possible global warming ( assuming it is not largely caused by natural
forces over which we have NO control )we could save millions of human
lives RIGHT NOW. But perhaps you are in love with your dog too??

On Oct 19, 5:45*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

John Savard wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:28:08 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote, in part:

I have never said that. I believe I said something along the lines that
an entire species of some birds is more valuable than some (unspecified)
number of individual human lives. You're welcome to disagree, but I
don't think my position is extreme or unusual.

That is ridiculous.

One human life is (intrinsically) more valuable than ANY amount of money
or material things.

Not quite ..... I often hear the variety "one human life is priceless"
meaning that one just cannot put a monetary value on one human life.
Your interpretation is that one human life is worth an infinite amount
of money. *But the world doesn't work that way - or else the governments
around the world would put no upper limit on the funds spent on things
as giving a home to homeless people so they don't have to freeze to
death in winter. Likewise, there would be no upper limit on the funds
spent on improving traffic safety so that not one single person would
die in traffic accidents. Et cetera et cetera .... in real life there
is a price on a human life.

This category, of course, includes pets, livestock,
and wild animals.

It is true that in our world, there is not enough food to feed everyone,

That's false! *The problem isn't the amount of food but the distribution
of food. *And the price of food!! *Some poor people just caannot afford to
byt the food they need for survival - at the same time, food is destroyed
in other parts of the world because it cannot be sold for profitale prices.
Now, try to merge these facts with the notion "one human life is more
valuable than ANY amount of money" ..... if people really thought this,
no food would e thrown away but instead be transported to those who
really need it. *Transportation cost would be no issue since "one human
life is more valuable than ANY amount of money" ..... again, the world
doesn't work this way.

And the world cannot work that way either ---- putting an infinite
monetary value on one single human life would mean it's quite rational
to make the whole world bankrupt just to save the life of one single
human life. *Of course, making the whole world bankrupt would cause a
very large number of deaths -- preventing this would cost a large but
finite sum of money, again putting a price tag per human life....

Claiming that one human life is worth an infinite amount of money will
create another weird effect: since no infinity is larger than another
infinity, then one human life would be worth no less than a million
human lives. *Again, the world doesn't work like that. *In a catastrophy
situation where there aren't enough resources to save everyone, the
efforts are focused on what probably will save most people. *So the
lives of 10 people are worth more than the life of one single person
in such a situation. *Quite sensible - but it does imply that the value
of the life of one person is finite, not infinite.

I think it's best to say that one human life is "priceless", i.e. we
cannot put a monetary value on it. *Not even an infinite monetary value....

and so enough money to save more than one life is too valuable to spend
on saving only one life somewhere else. This is practical value rather
than intrinsic value.

Thus, since many humans would die if, say, ants or earthworms became
extinct, these species have greater practical value (but not greater
intrinsic value) than a human life.

This is the human view. *Now we'd like to hear the view of the ants
and of the earthworms.... or perhaps even of the Earth.... *;-)

To assign a mere thing higher intrinsic value than a human being is
idolatry.

The situation where things compete with human beings in practical value
is a bad situation, one which we should try to remedy. This is done, for
example, by increasing the power and resources available to humanity, so
that less conflict exists between human survival and the sources of that
survival.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, *Grev Turegatan 40, *SE-114 38 Stockholm, *SWEDEN
e-mail: *pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: * *http://stjarnhimlen.se/

And the people who are allowed to suffer the most around the world are
black--rampant racism at its worst wouldn't you say??

On Oct 19, 5:45*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:47:04 GMT,
(John Savard) wrote:

One human life is (intrinsically) more valuable than ANY amount of money
or material things. This category, of course, includes pets, livestock,
and wild animals.

That is an opinion based on personal values. It cannot have any basis in
fact, and I'm sure a fair percentage of the population of the world
would disagree. I don't even agree that a human life has intrinsic
value; rather, it is valued by its internal world view and by the value
placed on it by others. I believe that some lives have negative value:
they harm me, or they harm many people.

It's better to say that the value of a human life is "priceless" - we
cannot put a monetary value on a human life.

In fact, the notion that animals are "things" is also a statement of
values, not fact. I don't share it. I would not offer the life of my dog
to save the life of a stranger. I place more personal value on my dog
than I do on most people.

Is that because your dog is a living creature, or is it because you
value your dog so much?

Your house is a thing, right? *A big and important thing but still a thing.
Would you offer your house to save the life of a stranger? *I believe most
people would not do that.

Different people have different values. You
certainly don't need to respect those values, but you do need to respect
the right to hold different values.
_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, *Grev Turegatan 40, *SE-114 38 Stockholm, *SWEDEN
e-mail: *pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: * *http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Hypocritical greens have their place in this world just like all other
charlatans. What is funny is watching the Al Gores of thw world get
rich off of their pathetic ignorance.

utopia has been tried many times by such folks as the communists--
didn't work though.

On Oct 19, 6:45*am, Thomas Womack
wrote:
In article ,

Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:44 am, "
wrote:

Mass starvation? BS. The temperate climate regions best suited for
crops will simply move North to Canada and Siberia.

But there's bugger-all good soil in those parts of Canada and Siberia,
since it's been scraped off the bedrock by glaciers and redeposited in
what are currently the prime agricultural areas further south.

Tom

Bad history--the ice caps went well into the US breadbasket farming
areas during past ice ages. BTW, what caused those ices to retreat?
Cars? How stupid can folks be??