Randy,
That's funny, me being a libertarian. I guess I don't blame you for thinking
that.
No, not at all, I am not a libertarian. I am not all for free sex and free pot
and I am not for freedom from any government or for anarchy. There is a level
of government envisioned by our founding fathers that I am all for. For lack
of better term, I am a constitionalist. Minimal government that works for the
interest of the people. Not the occultic, "environment worshipping" shadow
government we now have. This AGW propaganda is the agenda of this occultic
shadow government. That is why I am so strongly opposed to it.
Well, let me take that back. I am a Monarchist, much more than I am a
Constitionalist. I am awaiting the return of the one true King Jesus Christ.
A monarch who will establish justice, peace and equity. Imagine that, no
corruption for a thousand years.
On your other point. There is much that these climatologist can do to "settle"
the science to make it more credible. For one, Don't fudge the data. Second,
open up the discussion and don't stiffle it claiming it to be "settled
science". Third, promote more transparency and openness in the studies so
people can see the actual data, not just the "conclusions" of these
climatologists; which are just "opinions".
If these measures are implemented, it will go a long ways in "settling" the
science. What's wrong with that?
Why do you think it is, that conservative people like me, who do not have any
oil producer agenda oppose this AGW? If you think opposition to AGW agenda is
just from the oil lobby, you are grossly deluded.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy wuller
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming ....
Jojo:
I think it is unlikely that the science will be settled for everyone in the
foreseeable future. Some will have a vested interest to oppose certain steps
and will likely seek experts who will find reasons to call other opinions into
question.
It seems much more irresponsible in the face of opinion which rises above
noise, to ignore the possibility of adverse consequences.
As a result, I do not see the logic in waiting to "make sure there is a
problem" before taking steps to avoid causing a problem. Especially, when the
"making sure part" may be quite difficult and likely will occur after the
adverse events are irrefutable.
Free markets are great and are efficient in many areas, however, government
has also proven to be a necessary and a good thing in certain areas. If you
feel differently you will probably be forever unhappy because government
intervention in some areas is unlikely to go away and in fact is demanded by a
majority of your fellow human beings. If anything that kind of intervention is
likely to increase in the future. But you answered my question, you are a
libertarian, rather strong one it seems.
Ransom
----- Original Message -----
From: Jojo Jaro
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming ....
Randy,
It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a "problem", we
must first make "sure" there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a
non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a
whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a
"possibility". This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the
science first and do not cram it down people's throats.
I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead
oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is
also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However,
such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda.
They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial
tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt
the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching,
communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to
promote their "Environmental Worshipping" agenda.
That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or
not, it's just common sense.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy wuller
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming ....
Jojo:
I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some
evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is
a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we
should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about
what our meddling will change and it is harmless.
It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel
differently. It is a puzzle to me.
Ransom
----- Original Message -----
From: Jojo Jaro
To: Vortex-l
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM
Subject: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming ....
Here's some new data that is "worrying" 2000 climatologists about
Global Warming ....
Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong.
This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion
that Global Warming must be accelerating....???
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/
Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link "definitely" shows that Global
warming is occuring that is "correlated" to the amount of C02 that man pumps
out into the atmosphere.... ????
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/
But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who
where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them;
there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody
questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed?
Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW
propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity...
right?
Jojo
PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW)
propaganda from this forum.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date:
12/17/12
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12
