On 8/11/11 13:04 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Aug 11, 10:28 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/11/11 10:43 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Aug 10, 2:07 pm, wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:46 am, wrote:
- On Aug 10, 3:13 am, wrote:
.
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners
Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debatehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2acee8277e91b376
-posted-by- ka6uup
-and-reply-by- Bruce Jensenhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/bedf496a5fb56e41?
.
- - One Must Begin To Ask...
- -
- - How Many Shares BpnJ Owns in Al Gores
- - Carbon Credits Corps ? ? ?
- -
- - Al Gore The Great Profit of Global Warming !
- -
- - payola big or small is still payola ~ RHF
- - .
- - Another Absurd Climate Gate Moment !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/95fe5b213fcf20c4
- - .
- - Climate-Gate : The 21st Century's Biggest Scientific SCAM !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/03f8f34788943898
- - .
- - .

- You're an uneducated idiot.

BpnJ,

You are getting good at the Al Gore 'Rage-&-Rant' Thingee )http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/pol...re-rant-why-th...

You have elevated yourself from simple rank-and-file of
'Global Warming' to the rank of 'Full of Hot Air' ! ::-}}

Oops ! Climate-Gate Did Happen Yet Another
Inconvenient Truth !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...f3800097470e85
.
LET'S ALL CHANT THE CLIMATE-GATE© MANTRA :
IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE : THERE CAN BE NO DEBATE [.]
-wrt- Another Absurd Climate Gate© Moment !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...4493147109bb61
.
.

Your Al Gore reference is smoke and mirrors, and completely
irrelevant. The settled science part are your words, not mine, and
completely innaccurate.

Actually, 'The science is settled' is a quote of Algore. He said
it at the Oscars, he's said it on Charlie Rose.

He's said it numerous places.

Please educate yourself wity something other



than Faux News.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I said before, *Al Gore is irrelevant to the actual issue*. He is
only a messenger. To blithely discredit 150 years of long and
thoughtful research by physicists, meterologists, climatologists,
oceanographers, mathematicians and astronomers, peer review after peer
review of every single hypothesis vetted to the nth degree, and a
science which freely admits that it still must answer some of the more
intractable questions to provide a complete picture - as every true
science does, every time - because you don't like the messenger - is
just ugly, unscientific politics. To do it because of greedy,
narcissistic motives is reprehensible and immoral.


::::remaining content stipulated::::


Algore IS irrelevant. My point being that the words were not
Roy's. They were, in fact, Algore's. We may take solace in the fact,
that one blind squirrel has found his nuts, today.

More to the point...The science is not settled. As evidenced by
the number of qualified physicists, meteorologists and
climatologists that have taken opposition. And while the science to
which you refer is, in fact, peer reviewed, in the scientific
community dissent against a concensus is an essential part of the
scientific process. Where there is no debate, there can be,
ultimately, no truth. Only politics. What's interesting, and what
many on The Other Side are so enraged about, is that the most vocal
about this matter refuse to debate it at all.

Gore, for instance, will not be on any program with any other
guest who may speak. He will have the questions put to him vetted
before he agrees to appear. He will not answer questions that do not
presuppose his position is correct and absolute. (I speak with some
first hand experience with this, as a producer of radio interview
programs while I was at CBS.) In fact, recently, in Chicago, he was
scheduled for a media tour, all the TV chat shows, all the radio
stations. The day he was in town, the scandal broke about the
e-mails from the University of East Anglia. All his appearances were
summarily cancelled, and he left town under cover, so as not to have
to face questions.

Gore is only, as you say, a politician. And not a very good one
at that. But he is hardly alone in this. Else, why have there been
no open debates on this issue. There is only assertion and denial of
opposition. But there are no questions answered, no evidence
challenged.

That's not science, Bruce. That's politics.

History has presented other examples, look at Lister, reviled for
his position that contagion may be spread doctor to patient through
contaminated hands. Virtually, the entire medical community,
scientists...chemists, physicians, surgeons, researchers...all
condemned Lister for his single voice against the concensus. And
yet, he was right. Proven so in the fullness of time.

After the First World War and through the Second, science
advocated eugenics as a true and viable scientific solution to man's
ills. Dissent was fiercely suppressed in some circles. Often with
execution a result. Now widely discredited on scientific grounds,
only a few holdouts still assert eugenics as a means to a societal
end. William Shockley was among them. In the fullness of time, and
debate, did the truth emerge through the politics.

And, as you correctly point out, that a true science must admit
it's incomplete understanding, as is the case in the Climate Change
debate, and answer the more intractable questions in order to
complete its understanding. In which case, dissent is also part of
the scientific process.

Taken in these lights, shooting the messenger, either messenger,
is reprehensible and immoral. Which puts the abject dismissal of
dissent in the same category as those who deny the concensus
themselves.

Put that another way, there must be debate for the truth to
ultimately emerge. To dismiss, condemn, or silence either side is to
deny the emergence of the truth through scientific processes.

The Man Made Climate Change advocates, including Gore (yes, a
politician,) have joined many sitting politicians in state and
federal legislative bodies in calling for the silencing through
revocation of grant, through revocation of certification, through
termination of employment of anyone not supporting the Man Made
Climate Change agenda. Read Barbara Boxer's statements on the
subject. These individuals, as many of this body of advocacy, have
been guilty of the kind of ugly, unscientific politics you yourself
have here decried.

The truth will be known in the fullness of time. Silencing either
side, shooting either messenger will only support the emergent
politics. It will not support the emergent truth.



p

On 8/11/11 14:10 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Aug 11, 10:26 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/11/11 10:27 , bpnjensen wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:04 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/10/11 10:45 , bpnjensen wrote:

Every Republican is a liar. It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.

You're better than that, Bruce.

Sorry - I was just responding to Steve's silliness ;-)

Mike Myers says that silliness is a State of Grace.

One of the reasons so many people are so angry and tense is that
they've lost their silly.

That, and their meager retirements, their small fortunes, their tiny
security, their college tuitions, their livelihoods. Yeah, just try
smiling again! That'll fix everything!

Hardship is an experience. Silly is a state. They exist
independently of each other.

On Aug 11, 1:26*pm, "MNMikew" wrote:
"bpnjensen" wrote in message

...
On Aug 11, 11:03 am, "MNMikew" wrote:









"bpnjensen" wrote in message

....
On Aug 10, 10:59 am, "MNMikew" wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in
...

On 8/10/11 12:32 , MNMikew wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 8/10/11 10:45 , bpnjensen wrote:

Every Republican is a liar. It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.

You're better than that, Bruce.

Not really.

Actually, he's generally more reasoned than this outburst. He and I
may
disagree, but I rarely see this kind of bitterness.

Most AGW alarmists are pretty bitter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, MnMike is a person who doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about, making believe he does.

------------------
Thanks for proving my point.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bitter maybe, but no less correct. *You literally don't what the hell
you're talking about, wallow in joyful self-imposed ignorance, and
have not a single credential to your name. *All you know is what the
oil propaganda machine tells you. *Educate yourself, or STFU.

------------------------------
LOL!! Spoken like the liberal shill you are.

BpnJ must Drink a lot of that Al Gore fomented
Kool-Aid; naturally warmed by the sun )

~ RHF

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 8/11/11 13:04 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Aug 11, 10:28 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/11/11 10:43 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Aug 10, 2:07 pm, wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:46 am, wrote:
- On Aug 10, 3:13 am, wrote:
.
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners
Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC
Debatehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2acee8277e91b376
-posted-by- ka6uup
-and-reply-by- Bruce
Jensenhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/bedf496a5fb56e41?
.
- - One Must Begin To Ask...
- -
- - How Many Shares BpnJ Owns in Al Gores
- - Carbon Credits Corps ? ? ?
- -
- - Al Gore The Great Profit of Global Warming !
- -
- - payola big or small is still payola ~ RHF
- - .
- - Another Absurd Climate Gate Moment !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/95fe5b213fcf20c4
- - .
- - Climate-Gate : The 21st Century's Biggest Scientific SCAM !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/03f8f34788943898
- - .
- - .

- You're an uneducated idiot.

BpnJ,

You are getting good at the Al Gore 'Rage-&-Rant' Thingee
)http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/pol...re-rant-why-th...

You have elevated yourself from simple rank-and-file of
'Global Warming' to the rank of 'Full of Hot Air' ! ::-}}

Oops ! Climate-Gate Did Happen Yet Another
Inconvenient Truth
!http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...f3800097470e85
.
LET'S ALL CHANT THE CLIMATE-GATE© MANTRA :
IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE : THERE CAN BE NO DEBATE [.]
-wrt- Another Absurd Climate Gate© Moment
!http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...4493147109bb61
.
.

Your Al Gore reference is smoke and mirrors, and completely
irrelevant. The settled science part are your words, not mine, and
completely innaccurate.

Actually, 'The science is settled' is a quote of Algore. He said
it at the Oscars, he's said it on Charlie Rose.

He's said it numerous places.

Please educate yourself wity something other



than Faux News.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I said before, *Al Gore is irrelevant to the actual issue*. He is
only a messenger. To blithely discredit 150 years of long and
thoughtful research by physicists, meterologists, climatologists,
oceanographers, mathematicians and astronomers, peer review after peer
review of every single hypothesis vetted to the nth degree, and a
science which freely admits that it still must answer some of the more
intractable questions to provide a complete picture - as every true
science does, every time - because you don't like the messenger - is
just ugly, unscientific politics. To do it because of greedy,
narcissistic motives is reprehensible and immoral.


::::remaining content stipulated::::


Algore IS irrelevant. My point being that the words were not Roy's. They
were, in fact, Algore's. We may take solace in the fact, that one blind
squirrel has found his nuts, today.

More to the point...The science is not settled. As evidenced by the
number of qualified physicists, meteorologists and climatologists that
have taken opposition. And while the science to which you refer is, in
fact, peer reviewed, in the scientific community dissent against a
concensus is an essential part of the scientific process. Where there is
no debate, there can be, ultimately, no truth. Only politics. What's
interesting, and what many on The Other Side are so enraged about, is that
the most vocal about this matter refuse to debate it at all.

Gore, for instance, will not be on any program with any other guest who
may speak. He will have the questions put to him vetted before he agrees
to appear. He will not answer questions that do not presuppose his
position is correct and absolute. (I speak with some first hand experience
with this, as a producer of radio interview programs while I was at CBS.)
In fact, recently, in Chicago, he was scheduled for a media tour, all the
TV chat shows, all the radio stations. The day he was in town, the scandal
broke about the e-mails from the University of East Anglia. All his
appearances were summarily cancelled, and he left town under cover, so as
not to have to face questions.

Gore is only, as you say, a politician. And not a very good one at that.
But he is hardly alone in this. Else, why have there been no open debates
on this issue. There is only assertion and denial of opposition. But there
are no questions answered, no evidence challenged.

That's not science, Bruce. That's politics.

History has presented other examples, look at Lister, reviled for his
position that contagion may be spread doctor to patient through
contaminated hands. Virtually, the entire medical community,
scientists...chemists, physicians, surgeons, researchers...all condemned
Lister for his single voice against the concensus. And yet, he was right.
Proven so in the fullness of time.

After the First World War and through the Second, science advocated
eugenics as a true and viable scientific solution to man's ills. Dissent
was fiercely suppressed in some circles. Often with execution a result.
Now widely discredited on scientific grounds, only a few holdouts still
assert eugenics as a means to a societal end. William Shockley was among
them. In the fullness of time, and debate, did the truth emerge through
the politics.

And, as you correctly point out, that a true science must admit it's
incomplete understanding, as is the case in the Climate Change debate, and
answer the more intractable questions in order to complete its
understanding. In which case, dissent is also part of the scientific
process.

Taken in these lights, shooting the messenger, either messenger, is
reprehensible and immoral. Which puts the abject dismissal of dissent in
the same category as those who deny the concensus themselves.

Put that another way, there must be debate for the truth to ultimately
emerge. To dismiss, condemn, or silence either side is to deny the
emergence of the truth through scientific processes.

The Man Made Climate Change advocates, including Gore (yes, a
politician,) have joined many sitting politicians in state and federal
legislative bodies in calling for the silencing through revocation of
grant, through revocation of certification, through termination of
employment of anyone not supporting the Man Made Climate Change agenda.
Read Barbara Boxer's statements on the subject. These individuals, as many
of this body of advocacy, have been guilty of the kind of ugly,
unscientific politics you yourself have here decried.

The truth will be known in the fullness of time. Silencing either side,
shooting either messenger will only support the emergent politics. It will
not support the emergent truth.

Peter. Fabulous post!!!

On Aug 11, 1:38*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/11/11 13:04 , bpnjensen wrote:









On Aug 11, 10:28 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 8/11/11 10:43 , bpnjensen wrote:

On Aug 10, 2:07 pm, * *wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:46 am, * *wrote:
- On Aug 10, 3:13 am, * *wrote:
* *.
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners
Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debatehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2acee8277e91b376
-posted-by- ka6uup
-and-reply-by- Bruce Jensenhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/bedf496a5fb56e41?
* *.
- - One Must Begin To Ask...
- -
- - How Many Shares BpnJ Owns in Al Gores
- - Carbon Credits Corps ? ? ?
- -
- - Al Gore The Great Profit of Global Warming !
- -
- - payola big or small is still payola ~ RHF
- - *.
- - Another Absurd Climate Gate Moment !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/95fe5b213fcf20c4
- - *.
- - Climate-Gate : The 21st Century's Biggest Scientific SCAM !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/03f8f34788943898
- - *.
- - *.

- You're an uneducated idiot.

BpnJ,

You are getting good at the Al Gore 'Rage-&-Rant' Thingee )http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/pol...re-rant-why-th...

You have elevated yourself from simple rank-and-file of
'Global Warming' to the rank of 'Full of Hot Air' ! ::-}}

Oops ! Climate-Gate Did Happen Yet Another
Inconvenient Truth !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...f3800097470e85
* *.
LET'S ALL CHANT THE CLIMATE-GATE MANTRA :
IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE : THERE CAN BE NO DEBATE [.]
-wrt- Another Absurd Climate Gate Moment !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...4493147109bb61
* *.
* *.

Your Al Gore reference is smoke and mirrors, and completely
irrelevant. *The settled science part are your words, not mine, and
completely innaccurate.

* * Actually, 'The science is settled' is a quote of Algore. *He said
it at the Oscars, he's said it on Charlie Rose.

* * He's said it numerous places.

Please educate yourself wity something other

than Faux News.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I said before, *Al Gore is irrelevant to the actual issue*. *He is
only a messenger. *To blithely discredit 150 years of long and
thoughtful research by physicists, meterologists, climatologists,
oceanographers, mathematicians and astronomers, peer review after peer
review of every single hypothesis vetted to the nth degree, and a
science which freely admits that it still must answer some of the more
intractable questions to provide a complete picture - as every true
science does, every time - because you don't like the messenger - is
just ugly, unscientific politics. *To do it because of greedy,
narcissistic motives is reprehensible and immoral.

* *::::remaining content stipulated::::

* *Algore IS irrelevant. My point being that the words were not
Roy's. They were, in fact, Algore's. We may take solace in the fact,
that one blind squirrel has found his nuts, today.

* *More to the point...The science is not settled. As evidenced by
the number of qualified physicists, meteorologists and
climatologists that have taken opposition. And while the science to
which you refer is, in fact, peer reviewed, in the scientific
community dissent against a concensus is an essential part of the
scientific process. Where there is no debate, there can be,
ultimately, no truth. Only politics. What's interesting, and what
many on The Other Side are so enraged about, is that the most vocal
about this matter refuse to debate it at all.

* *Gore, for instance, will not be on any program with any other
guest who may speak. He will have the questions put to him vetted
before he agrees to appear. He will not answer questions that do not
presuppose his position is correct and absolute. (I speak with some
first hand experience with this, as a producer of radio interview
programs while I was at CBS.) In fact, recently, in Chicago, he was
scheduled for a media tour, all the TV chat shows, all the radio
stations. The day he was in town, the scandal broke about the
e-mails from the University of East Anglia. All his appearances were
summarily cancelled, and he left town under cover, so as not to have
to face questions.

* *Gore is only, as you say, a politician. And not a very good one
at that. But he is hardly alone in this. Else, why have there been
no open debates on this issue. There is only assertion and denial of
opposition. But there are no questions answered, no evidence
challenged.

- That's not science, Bruce. That's politics.

-imho-
That's Not Science, Bruce. That's Religion*

* The Cult of Global Warming who's Mantra is :
It's Settle Science : The Can Be No Debate !

Praise Be Al Gore Lord of Carbon Credits !
-thou-shalt-not-have-any-other-date-before-you-

On Aug 11, 1:49*pm, RHF wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:26*pm, "MNMikew" wrote:





"bpnjensen" wrote in message

...
On Aug 11, 11:03 am, "MNMikew" wrote:

"bpnjensen" wrote in message

....
On Aug 10, 10:59 am, "MNMikew" wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in
...

On 8/10/11 12:32 , MNMikew wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 8/10/11 10:45 , bpnjensen wrote:

Every Republican is a liar. It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.

You're better than that, Bruce.

Not really.

Actually, he's generally more reasoned than this outburst. He and I
may
disagree, but I rarely see this kind of bitterness.

Most AGW alarmists are pretty bitter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, MnMike is a person who doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about, making believe he does.

------------------
Thanks for proving my point.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bitter maybe, but no less correct. *You literally don't what the hell
you're talking about, wallow in joyful self-imposed ignorance, and
have not a single credential to your name. *All you know is what the
oil propaganda machine tells you. *Educate yourself, or STFU.

------------------------------
LOL!! Spoken like the liberal shill you are.

BpnJ must Drink a lot of that Al Gore fomented
Kool-Aid; naturally warmed by the sun )

~ RHF
*.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you're just stupid.

On Aug 11, 1:57*pm, RHF wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:38*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:





On 8/11/11 13:04 , bpnjensen wrote:

On Aug 11, 10:28 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 8/11/11 10:43 , bpnjensen wrote:

On Aug 10, 2:07 pm, * *wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:46 am, * *wrote:
- On Aug 10, 3:13 am, * *wrote:
* *.
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners
Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debatehttp://groups..google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2acee8277e91b376
-posted-by- ka6uup
-and-reply-by- Bruce Jensenhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/bedf496a5fb56e41?
* *.
- - One Must Begin To Ask...
- -
- - How Many Shares BpnJ Owns in Al Gores
- - Carbon Credits Corps ? ? ?
- -
- - Al Gore The Great Profit of Global Warming !
- -
- - payola big or small is still payola ~ RHF
- - *.
- - Another Absurd Climate Gate Moment !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/95fe5b213fcf20c4
- - *.
- - Climate-Gate : The 21st Century's Biggest Scientific SCAM !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/03f8f34788943898
- - *.
- - *.

- You're an uneducated idiot.

BpnJ,

You are getting good at the Al Gore 'Rage-&-Rant' Thingee )http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/pol...re-rant-why-th...

You have elevated yourself from simple rank-and-file of
'Global Warming' to the rank of 'Full of Hot Air' ! ::-}}

Oops ! Climate-Gate Did Happen Yet Another
Inconvenient Truth !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...f3800097470e85
* *.
LET'S ALL CHANT THE CLIMATE-GATE MANTRA :
IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE : THERE CAN BE NO DEBATE [.]
-wrt- Another Absurd Climate Gate Moment !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...4493147109bb61
* *.
* *.

Your Al Gore reference is smoke and mirrors, and completely
irrelevant. *The settled science part are your words, not mine, and
completely innaccurate.

* * Actually, 'The science is settled' is a quote of Algore. *He said
it at the Oscars, he's said it on Charlie Rose.

* * He's said it numerous places.

Please educate yourself wity something other

than Faux News.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I said before, *Al Gore is irrelevant to the actual issue*. *He is
only a messenger. *To blithely discredit 150 years of long and
thoughtful research by physicists, meterologists, climatologists,
oceanographers, mathematicians and astronomers, peer review after peer
review of every single hypothesis vetted to the nth degree, and a
science which freely admits that it still must answer some of the more
intractable questions to provide a complete picture - as every true
science does, every time - because you don't like the messenger - is
just ugly, unscientific politics. *To do it because of greedy,
narcissistic motives is reprehensible and immoral.

* *::::remaining content stipulated::::

* *Algore IS irrelevant. My point being that the words were not
Roy's. They were, in fact, Algore's. We may take solace in the fact,
that one blind squirrel has found his nuts, today.

* *More to the point...The science is not settled. As evidenced by
the number of qualified physicists, meteorologists and
climatologists that have taken opposition. And while the science to
which you refer is, in fact, peer reviewed, in the scientific
community dissent against a concensus is an essential part of the
scientific process. Where there is no debate, there can be,
ultimately, no truth. Only politics. What's interesting, and what
many on The Other Side are so enraged about, is that the most vocal
about this matter refuse to debate it at all.

* *Gore, for instance, will not be on any program with any other
guest who may speak. He will have the questions put to him vetted
before he agrees to appear. He will not answer questions that do not
presuppose his position is correct and absolute. (I speak with some
first hand experience with this, as a producer of radio interview
programs while I was at CBS.) In fact, recently, in Chicago, he was
scheduled for a media tour, all the TV chat shows, all the radio
stations. The day he was in town, the scandal broke about the
e-mails from the University of East Anglia. All his appearances were
summarily cancelled, and he left town under cover, so as not to have
to face questions.

* *Gore is only, as you say, a politician. And not a very good one
at that. But he is hardly alone in this. Else, why have there been
no open debates on this issue. There is only assertion and denial of
opposition. But there are no questions answered, no evidence
challenged.

- That's not science, Bruce. That's politics.

-imho-
That's Not Science, Bruce. That's Religion*

* The Cult of Global Warming who's Mantra is :
It's Settle Science : The Can Be No Debate !

Praise Be Al Gore Lord of Carbon Credits !
-thou-shalt-not-have-any-other-date-before-you-
*.
*.



* *History has presented other examples, look at Lister, reviled for
his position that contagion may be spread doctor to patient through
contaminated hands. Virtually, the entire medical community,
scientists...chemists, physicians, surgeons, researchers...all
condemned Lister for his single voice against the concensus. And
yet, he was right. Proven so in the fullness of time.

* *After the First World War and through the Second, science
advocated eugenics as a true and viable scientific solution to man's
ills. Dissent was fiercely suppressed in some circles. Often with
execution a result. Now widely discredited on scientific grounds,
only a few holdouts still assert eugenics as a means to a societal
end. William Shockley was among them. In the fullness of time, and
debate, did the truth emerge through the politics.

* *And, as you correctly point out, that a true science must admit
it's incomplete understanding, as is the case in the Climate Change
debate, and answer the more intractable questions in order to
complete its understanding. In which case, dissent is also part of
the scientific process.

* *Taken in these lights, shooting the messenger, either messenger,
is reprehensible and immoral. Which puts the abject dismissal of
dissent in the same category as those who deny the concensus
themselves.

* *Put that another way, there must be debate for the truth to
ultimately emerge. To dismiss, condemn, or silence either side is to
deny the emergence of the truth through scientific processes.

* *The Man Made Climate Change advocates, including Gore (yes, a
politician,) have joined many sitting politicians in state and
federal legislative bodies in calling for the silencing through
revocation of grant, through revocation of certification, through
termination of employment of anyone not supporting the Man Made
Climate Change agenda. Read Barbara Boxer's statements on the
subject. These individuals, as many of this body of advocacy, have
been guilty of the kind of ugly, unscientific politics you yourself
have here decried.

* *The truth will be known in the fullness of time. Silencing either
side, shooting either messenger will only support the emergent
politics. It will not support the emergent truth.

* *p- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are an idiot. Again. Your blathering that "science is religion"
does not make it so, and only undescores your complete
misunderstanding of what science and the scientific process is.

Religion is the belief in something without the tiniest shred of
evidence. It often equals poltiics, especially these days.

Science is quite the opposite - science is skepticism until
overwhelming evidence is in. Learn the difference. Or not - continue
to be an ignorant idiot, I don't care.

On Aug 11, 1:44*pm, RHF wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:36*am, bpnjensen wrote: On Aug 10, 10:04*am, m II wrote:

bpnjensen wrote:
Every Republican is a liar. *It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.

No need to sink to the acehole's level. You're better equipped to
express yourself.

mike

*signature.asc
1KViewDownload

- So I'm just curious

Stay 'Curious' My Friend )

- what do we object to here?

Because I Can )

-*The "Republicans are liars" thing,
- which is arguably true,

A Half-Truth is Not The Whole Truth
and Therefore Not The Truth At All [.]
*.
- or the "inbreeding" thing,
- which is obviously a crude joke?

I would say that they {Republicans} suffer
from Conservative "inthinking" much as the
Democrats suffer from Liberal "inthinking".
-fair-and-balanced-
*.
-*I don't understand why the knee-jerk
- conservatives can make one disgraceful
- comment about liberals after another,

Cause It's All True
-well-may-be...-
*.
- including veiled threats to kill them,

-but- Liberals look so nice in 'veils'
-imagine- Obama wearing a 'Hijab'
*.
- and when a liberal does it he gets
- picked on by everyone?

Impossible ! -cause- Liberals Tell Us Time
and Time Again : That "They" Are The Majority !
-so- non-liberals must be in the minority
and thus can not be 'everyone' -iasf-
IT'S SETTLE SCIENCE : THERE CAN BE NO DEBATE !
*.
-*The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut
- with a jackhammer.
- Bruce

Alas BpnJ, your logic is no johnnymaul.
*.
*.

I said nothing about liberals here - you are putting words in my
mouth. Science is not liberal or conservative - it is only
objective. Liberals and conservatives used to know that (except when
the church told them not to - it's only when the prevailing power
structure is challenged that science is politicized, and even then,
the real scientists eschew the crap).

My logic is nearly perfect, and only falters when I do not have facts
- in which case I admit I do not have the facts. Logic is not built
on presuppositions or bad analogies, or even on opinions. Yours is
likely nonexistent, since facts appear to mean nothing to you.

Bruce Jensen

On 8/11/11 16:38 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:38 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/11/11 13:04 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Aug 11, 10:28 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/11/11 10:43 , bpnjensen wrote:

On Aug 10, 2:07 pm, wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:46 am, wrote:
- On Aug 10, 3:13 am, wrote:
.
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners
Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debatehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2acee8277e91b376
-posted-by- ka6uup
-and-reply-by- Bruce Jensenhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/bedf496a5fb56e41?
.
- - One Must Begin To Ask...
- -
- - How Many Shares BpnJ Owns in Al Gores
- - Carbon Credits Corps ? ? ?
- -
- - Al Gore The Great Profit of Global Warming !
- -
- - payola big or small is still payola ~ RHF
- - .
- - Another Absurd Climate Gate Moment !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/95fe5b213fcf20c4
- - .
- - Climate-Gate : The 21st Century's Biggest Scientific SCAM !
- -http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/03f8f34788943898
- - .
- - .

- You're an uneducated idiot.

BpnJ,

You are getting good at the Al Gore 'Rage-&-Rant' Thingee )http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/pol...re-rant-why-th...

You have elevated yourself from simple rank-and-file of
'Global Warming' to the rank of 'Full of Hot Air' ! ::-}}

Oops ! Climate-Gate Did Happen Yet Another
Inconvenient Truth !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...f3800097470e85
.
LET'S ALL CHANT THE CLIMATE-GATE MANTRA :
IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE : THERE CAN BE NO DEBATE [.]
-wrt- Another Absurd Climate Gate Moment !http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...4493147109bb61
.
.

Your Al Gore reference is smoke and mirrors, and completely
irrelevant. The settled science part are your words, not mine, and
completely innaccurate.

Actually, 'The science is settled' is a quote of Algore. He said
it at the Oscars, he's said it on Charlie Rose.

He's said it numerous places.

Please educate yourself wity something other

than Faux News.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I said before, *Al Gore is irrelevant to the actual issue*. He is
only a messenger. To blithely discredit 150 years of long and
thoughtful research by physicists, meterologists, climatologists,
oceanographers, mathematicians and astronomers, peer review after peer
review of every single hypothesis vetted to the nth degree, and a
science which freely admits that it still must answer some of the more
intractable questions to provide a complete picture - as every true
science does, every time - because you don't like the messenger - is
just ugly, unscientific politics. To do it because of greedy,
narcissistic motives is reprehensible and immoral.

::::remaining content stipulated::::

Algore IS irrelevant. My point being that the words were not
Roy's. They were, in fact, Algore's. We may take solace in the fact,
that one blind squirrel has found his nuts, today.

More to the point...The science is not settled. As evidenced by
the number of qualified physicists, meteorologists and
climatologists that have taken opposition. And while the science to
which you refer is, in fact, peer reviewed, in the scientific
community dissent against a concensus is an essential part of the
scientific process. Where there is no debate, there can be,
ultimately, no truth. Only politics. What's interesting, and what
many on The Other Side are so enraged about, is that the most vocal
about this matter refuse to debate it at all.

Gore, for instance, will not be on any program with any other
guest who may speak. He will have the questions put to him vetted
before he agrees to appear. He will not answer questions that do not
presuppose his position is correct and absolute. (I speak with some
first hand experience with this, as a producer of radio interview
programs while I was at CBS.) In fact, recently, in Chicago, he was
scheduled for a media tour, all the TV chat shows, all the radio
stations. The day he was in town, the scandal broke about the
e-mails from the University of East Anglia. All his appearances were
summarily cancelled, and he left town under cover, so as not to have
to face questions.

Gore is only, as you say, a politician. And not a very good one
at that. But he is hardly alone in this. Else, why have there been
no open debates on this issue. There is only assertion and denial of
opposition. But there are no questions answered, no evidence
challenged.

That's not science, Bruce. That's politics.

History has presented other examples, look at Lister, reviled for
his position that contagion may be spread doctor to patient through
contaminated hands. Virtually, the entire medical community,
scientists...chemists, physicians, surgeons, researchers...all
condemned Lister for his single voice against the concensus. And
yet, he was right. Proven so in the fullness of time.

After the First World War and through the Second, science
advocated eugenics as a true and viable scientific solution to man's
ills. Dissent was fiercely suppressed in some circles. Often with
execution a result. Now widely discredited on scientific grounds,
only a few holdouts still assert eugenics as a means to a societal
end. William Shockley was among them. In the fullness of time, and
debate, did the truth emerge through the politics.

And, as you correctly point out, that a true science must admit
it's incomplete understanding, as is the case in the Climate Change
debate, and answer the more intractable questions in order to
complete its understanding. In which case, dissent is also part of
the scientific process.

Taken in these lights, shooting the messenger, either messenger,
is reprehensible and immoral. Which puts the abject dismissal of
dissent in the same category as those who deny the concensus
themselves.

Put that another way, there must be debate for the truth to
ultimately emerge. To dismiss, condemn, or silence either side is to
deny the emergence of the truth through scientific processes.

The Man Made Climate Change advocates, including Gore (yes, a
politician,) have joined many sitting politicians in state and
federal legislative bodies in calling for the silencing through
revocation of grant, through revocation of certification, through
termination of employment of anyone not supporting the Man Made
Climate Change agenda. Read Barbara Boxer's statements on the
subject. These individuals, as many of this body of advocacy, have
been guilty of the kind of ugly, unscientific politics you yourself
have here decried.

The truth will be known in the fullness of time. Silencing either
side, shooting either messenger will only support the emergent
politics. It will not support the emergent truth.

p- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't care about Al Gore. Al Gore is STILL irrelevant.

Nobody proposes to silence either messenger. Let he who has the
evidence present it. I have not see any new evidence to the contrary
in awhile - just the same old hackneyed arguments that keep getting
dredged up, plus flash-in-the-pan exclamation points like that one
about satellite data from a couple weeks ago. They are either already
accounted for or are being worked on. If the basic theory needs
adjustment, however big that may be, it gets done - no real scientist
wants to see it done wrong - that makes no sense. Meanwhile, the real
scientific community has been near consensus on this matter since
before Al Gore Jr. was even a known name. The fullness of time, as I
have explained before, is already largely passed and the big questions
have been essentially answered. I knew this already 35 years ago,
when only scietists were still questioning the details, rather than
every screwball who had a political opinion.

Stop making excuses for the bozos and the coropration for whom this is
an inconvenience. More important things than money are at stake.

Bruce Jensen



Bruce,


"...More important things than money are at stake."


That is precisely the issue in contention.

On 8/11/11 16:38 , bpnjensen wrote:
Nobody proposes to silence either messenger.



Again, read Barbara Boxer's comment on the subject. Silencing
opposition is precisely what she proposed. And being an active
officer in the US Government, that raises some very serious 1st
Amendment issues. And yet, she has proposed some pretty significant
legislative motion to specifically silence those who don't sign on
to the agenda.

This is contrary to scientific discourse, debate and process.