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

On 7/13/2012 10:56 AM, oriel36 wrote:

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.


I think anyone observing American politics can see plainly that the
folks on the right have a greater conflict of interest with respect to
any scientific exploration whose result is contrary to Biblical and/or
ideological assertions.

But, that's just me. I'm inside the bubble.

On Jul 13, 4:09*pm, Steve wrote:
On 7/13/2012 10:56 AM, oriel36 wrote:

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.

I think anyone observing American politics can see plainly that the
folks on the right have a greater conflict of interest with respect to
any scientific exploration whose result is contrary to Biblical and/or
ideological assertions.

But, that's just me. I'm inside the bubble.

The biggest single advance in observational astronomy will be the
extremely difficult and delicate task of putting a telescope(s) on
Mars in order to study the Earth from a remote position as opposed to
a presently unproductive agenda built around the idea of human
exploration of the planet.The phases of the Earth as seen from Mars
will be crucial for study climate and orbital factors that are
presently too difficult to discern for many reasons and while the moon
would be an extremely useful foundation for testing the technical
issues of remotely landing a delicate instrument at a great
distance,none of this can happen with such a poor interpretation of
planetary dynamics with terrestrial effects.

If any person wants an education on the Biblical texts,how the system
of Genesis works,how it is mirrored in the genealogical structure of
Matthew 1,why that structure is a Rosetta stone for another Biblical
work with a mathematical facet then ask me as I know more about these
facets then anyone alive,whether I care to share them with anyone else
is a different matter as I couldn't bear to see them mishandled or
overreaching with conclusions that do not suit or were never intended.

The Book Of Revelation is impenetrable for those who lack a background
appreciation of these masterpieces,some of which are not even
restricted to Christianity yet when that Book declares that sometimes
it is not possible to sit on the fence and attempt to reconcile
ideologies which are never meant to exist as a compromise,people
should pay attention.Science is a facet of my faith,it is not opposed
to faith nor can it be considered on an equal footing yet I find it
easier to deal with people who have convictions which totally miss the
point of faith than those who try to excuse faith as being incidental
to science.If Peterson and his colleagues hate Christianity and
imagine it to be outgrown superstition then good for them but they may
discover that without the background ability to feel what our
ancestors achieved,even the mistakes they made,they are like people
listening to music because everyone else agrees it is profound rather
than experiencing it as satisfying.It is how I perceive the works of
the great astronomers and even those who chanced their arms with their
own version of things including the empiricists.

You cannot choose to believe or disbelieve faith as faith is the
ability to affirm or rejects ideas on the grounds of repulsion or
intense satisfaction and when allied with spacial awareness and a deep
respect for the language of geometry,it generates a creative and
productive atmosphere for astronomy.

On Jul 13, 9:25*am, BS284 wrote:
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.

You can eat whatever you can afford on your own.

But in your particular case it's pretty obvious that you would
have them eat **** and/or get off "your" planet.

Again, you can eat whatever you can afford on your own.

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

Compromise is contrived and rarely gives good results. Did you not
read the link?

As an American:
I want liberals to continue to argue on behalf of the poor.

They should help the poor on their own, the way conservatives do and
not with tax dollars.

I want conservatives to continue to argue on behalf of the rich.

And those who are not poor, nor rich, correct?

I want neither of them to take control of our government.

The liberals already have. They controlled all three branches for two
years, and what were the results?

I want them all to compromise on how to spend our tax dollars.

I want them to spend fewer tax dollars, and only spend them on that
which is specified in the Constitution.

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

No, those are liberal viewpoints.

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.

Actually, I am rather good at being a conservative.

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

You have that backwards. You wish for government to control, regulate,
tax, spend and redistribute wealth (to those who support you.) THAT
is fascist behavior.

I, by contrast, merely expect you to practice what you preach, which
does not need to involve politics or government at all.

On Jul 13, 10:24*am, 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.

Peterson you are about as irrational as can be and a hypocrite to
boot.

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).

You might try some critical thinking yourself, fascist.

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.

Why not start a hippie commune and put some of your stupid ideas into
practice on a small scale. See how long that lasts without support
from the outside.

On 7/13/2012 8:54 PM, wrote:

I want them to spend fewer tax dollars, and only spend them on that
which is specified in the Constitution.

But the devil is in the details.

If you want to argue what are currently unconstitutional expenditures,
do so with someone who knows the devil. I don't care. I'm just a grunt
with freedom of speech, control of a single vote, and taxable income
after exemptions and deductions. I vote for the person who I believe
best represents my interests, and the interests of my community, my
state, and my country, in that order.

For reference..

Article 1 Section 8 -

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

On Jul 14, 12:55*am, Steve wrote:
On 7/13/2012 8:54 PM, wrote:

I want them to spend fewer tax dollars, and only spend them on that
which is specified in the Constitution.

But the devil is in the details.

If you want to argue what are currently unconstitutional expenditures,
do so with someone who knows the devil. I don't care. I'm just a grunt
with freedom of speech, control of a single vote, and taxable income
after exemptions and deductions. I vote for the person who I believe
best represents my interests,

Then you are part of the problem.

For example, Pelozi made a big deal about how "artists" won't have to
keep a "day job" in order to have health insurance. What she, you and
far too many others don't want to recognize is that the medical
personnel who would actually be _providing_ the health care to these
"artists" have, in effect, "day jobs," as do the vast majority of
taxpayers who will end up footing the bill. If an "artist" can't
make enough as an "artist" to buy health insurance then he or she
should find a more stable and remunerative career, ie one of those
nasty "day jobs." Seems fair to me.

So long as liberal politicians make such promises to liberal voters,
who "vote for the person who I believe
best represents my interests" then the problems will only get worse.

Now if a state, such as Vermont, wants to subsidize "artists" then at
least the damage and rot will be localized to Vermont, even though the
situation will still be unfair and unethical.

and the interests of my community, my
state, and my country, in that order.

You should solve your own problems on your own and recognize that the
US federal government is supposed to have limited powers over its
citizens.

On 7/14/2012 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Jul 14, 12:55 am, Steve wrote:
On 7/13/2012 8:54 PM, wrote:

I want them to spend fewer tax dollars, and only spend them on that
which is specified in the Constitution.

But the devil is in the details.

If you want to argue what are currently unconstitutional expenditures,
do so with someone who knows the devil. I don't care. I'm just a grunt
with freedom of speech, control of a single vote, and taxable income
after exemptions and deductions. I vote for the person who I believe
best represents my interests,

Then you are part of the problem.

Which problem?
The national debt?

There are two problems at the root of that:
1) Federal Deficit Spending
2) Employment (including downward wage trends for the employed)

A couple of data points for you to consider:
#1) Massachusetts receives one dollar or less of federal tax money for
each dollar paid in federal taxes. (We do not contribute to the national
debt.)

#2) The unemployment rate in Massachusetts is below the national average
(at 6%), and we are number 6 in the nation in per capita income.

I'd say we're doing a pretty good job at keeping our own house in order.

You assume that what is in the best interest of the country, is not the
same as what is in the best interest of the state of local governments.
As if the state and the local government were not run by "the people".

The fact is, the only real burden of the federal government on my local
economy, is the impact that No Child Left Behind has had on my property
taxes because it was an unfunded mandate.

(And now we've come full circle, back to my energy efficient 2000 square
foot home on 2 acres, for which I am assessed a property tax.)

On Jun 23, 3:20*pm, Thad Floryan quoted, in part:

(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it
and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the
truth. You don’t know it."

But the science _is_ settled on evolution, relativity, and, for that
matter, basic Newtonian mechanics.

It isn't settled on the precise urgency of global warming, but the
existence of the greenhouse effect, the fact that water vapor is a
feedback mechanism, and several other things, _are_ settled.

Nuclear power offers us an energy solution that we really should not
refuse.

John Savard

On Jun 23, 3:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?

Because we actually believe that if the Soviets had launched their
missiles at us with hydrogen warheads, we would get killed. After all,
it was proven at Bikini Atoll that hydrogen bombs do work.

When it comes to global warming, though, the uncomfortable reality is
easy to deny. When it seems like the only other choice would be to
reduce our energy use to an extent that would have catastrophic
economic consequences, one has to be sure in order to accept so
painful a remedy - and to most people, that kind of certainty won't
come until it's too late.

My answer is nuclear power: the remedy that is not painful but which
instead gives us more energy to enjoy instead.

John Savard

On Jun 23, 5:45*pm, RichA wrote:
THAT would be the best thing that
could happen to Earth's environment you could do.

Fallout is not good for California condors, lemurs, koala bears, snail
darters and other living things.

John Savard