Ahem, the observation is from behavioral psychologists like BF Skinner, or old. 
Operant conditioning and all that. 
<<Nuclear (especially LFTRs), wind, and solar.??>>

I am interested in all these types, but are all implementable in time? Will 
liquid fluoride really be safer, then a Canadian CANDU SLOWPOKE, I don't know. 
I will guess that all of this to be able to completely replace the dirty stuff 
will take decades. We might in ten years add these as supplemental electricity 
makers, but not the lions share of juice, for sure.

<<?? You mean the U.S. government refuses to act in the best interests    of 
it's citizens: Vote them out.>>

You are an idealist, aren't you? What if, the majority of citizens, or a large, 
noisy, minority, demur from your advice of "voting" them out? Furthermore, what 
if the People's Republic of China says: We will not ruin ourselves economically 
on the orders of this fierce, foreigner, Brent Meeker!"  What will you do 
Brent, give us a nipple pinch, boycott our products, declare war? Remember, 
please, that this is your world too. We are spewing poisons into the air and 
water. Plus, we are melting your Polar Ice Caps. What shall you do against such 
suicidal, murderous, nations? Ah! I didn't catch it till just now. Economic 
sanctions. Got ya. What if sanctions do not make us mend our ways, and it 
hasn't worked on the Ayatiollah's yet, what then?

<<So you've already given up.  I hope you've bought land in the     Arctic.
    Brent>>
Sorry, me lad, I am not a real estate guy, and am but a humble, prole, alas! 
And, yes, I have given up on lots of things.

Cheers





Complete bullshit from the Faux News talking points.  All the    climate 
scientists are civil servants or tenured academics and have    good job whether 
AGW is true or not.  What they have on the line is    their professional 
reputations and if any one of them had data to    dispute AGW they'd be only to 
glad to make their reputation as the    guy who proved AGW wrong.  It's the 
deniers and obfuscators who only    get paid by Exxon and the Koch brothers if 
they publish some junk    science to obfuscate the question.
    
    
    
        
If AGW is more nuanced, shall we say,            then the salaries, the power 
is diminished. If the climate            pause takes longer, then the people 
proposing climate            change, have to come up with an excuse. Notice, 
please that            until recently, AGW is now called Climate Change. My 
best            bet on this is that the term was change to cover all            
variations in climate, in case it doesn't get warmer, as            exemplified 
by the UK's weather over the last 10 years. No            Miami temps in London 
so far. This goes against earlier            forecasts, doesn't it?
        
 
        
Now to your Libertarian denial theme, let us say I am          agnostic but 
deeply suspicious myself, but allow me to counter          question. 
        
1. What non-carbon fuel source do you have at the ready to          replace 
climate damaging fossil fuels?
      
    
    Nuclear (especially LFTRs), wind, and solar.
    
    
        
2. Do your solutions include switching off dirty power in          the US, 
without a working substitute?
      
    Of course not.  No one has ever suggested that (except Deniers    setting 
up a straw man).
    
    
        
3. What do you recommend if the US refuses to comply?
      
    
    ?? You mean the U.S. government refuses to act in the best interests    of 
it's citizens: Vote them out.
    
    
        
4. Ditto, India, China, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico,          etc?
      
    
    Economic sanctions.
    
    
        
 
        
I guess I am at step 5 and 6 on your scheme of things.
        
      
    
    So you've already given up.  I hope you've bought land in the    Arctic.
    
    Brent




-----Original Message-----
From: meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:52 pm
Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World


          
    
On 11/9/2013 5:12 PM,      spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
    
    
        
Brent, let us look at human nature as            it exists and not posit 
perfection to scientists and            bureaucrats. Climate scientist who 
peddle AGW have skin in            the game. What's their reward? They get 
guaranteed jobs and            do the planning and make policies if true, thus, 
their            careers are set Bureaucrat's ,like politicians, want  power    
        over others and also have guaranteed careers. 
      
    
    Complete bullshit from the Faux News talking points.  All the    climate 
scientists are civil servants or tenured academics and have    good job whether 
AGW is true or not.  What they have on the line is    their professional 
reputations and if any one of them had data to    dispute AGW they'd be only to 
glad to make their reputation as the    guy who proved AGW wrong.  It's the 
deniers and obfuscators who only    get paid by Exxon and the Koch brothers if 
they publish some junk    science to obfuscate the question.
    
    
    
        
If AGW is more nuanced, shall we say,            then the salaries, the power 
is diminished. If the climate            pause takes longer, then the people 
proposing climate            change, have to come up with an excuse. Notice, 
please that            until recently, AGW is now called Climate Change. My 
best            bet on this is that the term was change to cover all            
variations in climate, in case it doesn't get warmer, as            exemplified 
by the UK's weather over the last 10 years. No            Miami temps in London 
so far. This goes against earlier            forecasts, doesn't it?
        
 
        
Now to your Libertarian denial theme, let us say I am          agnostic but 
deeply suspicious myself, but allow me to counter          question. 
        
1. What non-carbon fuel source do you have at the ready to          replace 
climate damaging fossil fuels?
      
    
    Nuclear (especially LFTRs), wind, and solar.
    
    
        
2. Do your solutions include switching off dirty power in          the US, 
without a working substitute?
      
    Of course not.  No one has ever suggested that (except Deniers    setting 
up a straw man).
    
    
        
3. What do you recommend if the US refuses to comply?
      
    
    ?? You mean the U.S. government refuses to act in the best interests    of 
it's citizens: Vote them out.
    
    
        
4. Ditto, India, China, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico,          etc?
      
    
    Economic sanctions.
    
    
        
 
        
I guess I am at step 5 and 6 on your scheme of things.
        
      
    
    So you've already given up.  I hope you've bought land in the    Arctic.
    
    Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to