Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:12:06 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:08*am, BS284 > wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 6:12 AM, wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 12:13 am, BS284 > wrote:
> >> On 7/9/2012 7:43 PM, wrote:
>
> >>> You seem to be worried about CO2 footprints and global warming,
>
> >> I never said I was worried about CO2 and AGW. I said there was no
> >> downside to making changes that reduce carbon foot print.
>
> > You could have built a smaller house with a more reasonable carbon
> > footprint, but less floor space = downside, correct?
>
> You're missing the point entirely.
>
> I built a 2000 square foot house to meet my families needs,

There you go, confusing your NEEDS with your WANTS. Typical
hypocritical liberal.

I will defer to my original post to which you went off on a tirade, and call it a day sir:

"Not only can you reduce your energy footprint easily, but it can be fun
and _save you money_. I don't understand the reluctance."

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:32:55 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

In article ,
bjacoby wrote:

On 7/11/2012 1:33 AM, David Friedman wrote:
In ,
Bill wrote:

What Miskolczi actually wrote (pdf pg6):

"It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange
equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as
meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of
flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the
rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport
that may be occurring."

Miskolczi simply defined a term. Spencer deleted that fact, then
attacked the resulting straw man. Beginning a rebuttal by
distorting the original meaning is an automatic fail.

I thought the quote sounded like a description of equilibrium.

Um, that would probably be because he is defining the term "radiative
exchange equilibrium" rather than just "radiative exchange" as the
so-called rebuttal asserts.

Yes. That was my point. That interpretation occurred to me when I saw
the quote. The whole controversy doesn't sound to me like one that I am
willing to take the time and effort required to evaluate.

Why would that be? If Miskolczi is right, as he appears to be, the
entire effort to limit CO2 becomes baseless. If you won't even try to
understand why, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

On Jul 11, 2:40*pm, Steve wrote:
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:12:06 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:08*am, BS284 > wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 6:12 AM, wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 12:13 am, BS284 > wrote:
> >> On 7/9/2012 7:43 PM, wrote:
>
> >>> You seem to be worried about CO2 footprints and global warming,
>
> >> I never said I was worried about CO2 and AGW. I said there was no
> >> downside to making changes that reduce carbon foot print.
>
> > You could have built a smaller house with a more reasonable carbon
> > footprint, but less floor space = downside, correct?
>
> You're missing the point entirely.
>
> I built a 2000 square foot house to meet my families needs,

There you go, confusing your NEEDS with your WANTS. *Typical
hypocritical liberal.

I will defer to my original post to which you went off on a tirade, and call it a day sir:

You liberals really hate when your hypocrisy is pointed out.

"Not only can you reduce your energy footprint easily, but it can be fun
and _save you money_. I don't understand the reluctance."

No doubt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws1XkcTHys

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/5059044104/

Does your family travel that way?

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:40:09 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:

You liberals really hate when your hypocrisy is pointed out.

The irony is that you think me being a liberal at heart
matters. I told you, I'm a moderate. Center-left on some
issues, center-right on others.

I vote republican 90% of the time.

You better present more than vitriol for liberal ideas if
you want me to vote your way in the next election. I have
to tell you, it's not looking too good. I'm tired of the
anger on the right. I don't want a bunch of angry people
running my country.

Like I said, go pick on Al Gore. Your ilk's misdirected anger
is what pushes moderates over to the democrats. If conservatives
don't win the senate, it will be folks like you that lost it for
them.

It doesn't matter who's in the whitehouse in 2013. Conservatives need
the senate to accomplish their goals.

I might switch my vote to Elizabeth Warren, just for you. Petty?
Yeah. Pretty much. But there's not a thing you can do about it.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT), Steve
wrote:

I vote republican 90% of the time.

To people like those you're responding to, voting Republican only 90%
of the time makes you a flaming liberal. These people have no concept
of what a moderate really is.

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:43:01 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT), Steve
> wrote:

>I vote republican 90% of the time.

To people like those you're responding to, voting Republican only 90%
of the time makes you a flaming liberal. These people have no concept
of what a moderate really is.

Thank you!

On Jul 12, 1:38*pm, Steve wrote:
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:40:09 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
You liberals really hate when your hypocrisy is pointed out.

The irony is that you think me being a liberal at heart
matters. I told you, I'm a moderate. Center-left on some
issues, center-right on others.

I vote republican 90% of the time.

You meant to say you vote RINO 90% of the time.

You better present more than vitriol for liberal ideas if
you want me to vote your way in the next election. I have
to tell you, it's not looking too good. I'm tired of the
anger on the right. I don't want a bunch of angry people
running my country.

Like I said, go pick on Al Gore. Your ilk's misdirected anger
is what pushes moderates over to the democrats. If conservatives
don't win the senate, it will be folks like you that lost it for
them.

It doesn't matter who's in the whitehouse in 2013. Conservatives need
the senate to accomplish their goals.

I might switch my vote to Elizabeth Warren, just for you. Petty?
Yeah. Pretty much. But there's not a thing you can do about it.

Mob rule in action.

Mark Steyn came up with an interesting analogy which I will try to
adapt:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...eam/mark-steyn

Conservatives want to eat ice cream. Liberals want conservatives to
eat dog feces. Moderates want conservatives to eat a mixture of the
two and expect everyone to be happy with the compromise.

On 7/13/2012 6:49 AM, wrote:

Conservatives want to eat ice cream. Liberals want conservatives to
eat dog feces. Moderates want conservatives to eat a mixture of the
two and expect everyone to be happy with the compromise.


Funny you don't mention what conservatives want liberals and moderates
to eat. But in your particular case it's pretty obvious that you would
have them eat **** and/or get off "your" planet.

I don't know about anyone else, but being a moderate is nowhere near
that contrived in my case.

As an American:
I want liberals to continue to argue on behalf of the poor.
I want conservatives to continue to argue on behalf of the rich.
I want neither of them to take control of our government.
I want them all to compromise on how to spend our tax dollars.

Right or wrong by definition, I call that being a moderate.

The problem in this country right now, is that everyone involved wants
to do what is easy, and as a result they are doing nothing. Bunch of
whiny ass ball players on both sides.

And you are an example of the worst of conservatives.

Since you're so big on labels, here's yours: Fascist.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:25:56 -0400, BS284 wrote:

I don't know about anyone else, but being a moderate is nowhere near
that contrived in my case.

Your problem is that you want to think about your choices, and attempt
to operate rationally. The Republicans don't want you to do that (just
look at the Texas Republican platform, which is opposed to teaching
critical thinking in schools). The Republicans, the Teabaggers, and
those even further to the right have a one-stop solution: don't think,
just vote as they say. Otherwise you're a "socialist" and shouldn't
even live in the U.S.

On Jul 13, 3:24*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:25:56 -0400, BS284 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but being a moderate is nowhere near
that contrived in my case.

Your problem is that you want to think about your choices, and attempt
to operate rationally. The Republicans don't want you to do that (just
look at the Texas Republican platform, which is opposed to teaching
critical thinking in schools). The Republicans, the Teabaggers, and
those even further to the right have a one-stop solution: don't think,
just vote as they say. Otherwise you're a "socialist" and shouldn't
even live in the U.S.

When pushed,you all turn into unrepentant Nazis,insidious for students
trying to understand the connection between the Universal and the
terrestrial through the great cycles of the Earth.I have seen the
vicious strain of empiricism dominate since Newton's era and it has
become acute presently with the aggressive assault on climate studies
based on lifestyles.

Make no mistake about this,whatever difference you imagine you have
via internal American politics,you are bound to each other in
opposition to science,education and anything good and productive.