[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But thanks for bringing it up because it emphasizes my point: global warming is all conjecture into the future and no one knows what the hell will happen Not true, the computer models of our climate predict increasing heat and changing weather patterns. They have been tested to be accurate. A volcano in the 1990's gave just the sort of change in atmospheric polution that the models need to work with, they made a prediction of how it would affect the climate and it was borne out. The models are good, therefore we DO know what will happen, just not the full extent or the exact time. But it's all happening faster than expected with arctic ice thinning and retreating faster than expected, the permafrost is melting too. All predicted to be the among the first signs of a catastrophic change. In related news, Fairbanks Alaska had the coldest start to winter in 16 years... Just the sort of thing we'd expect funnily enough..
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: Vaj, why couldn't there be a third possibility, such as THAT NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN? Why is it that the only possibilities had to be something catastrophic? And to now say, as you do, that the two possibilities were the two extremes -- extreme hot or extreme cold -- my gosh, I'm not a scientist but I think I'm on safe ground when I say that THAT is wacky and kooky stuff and not something that can be called science. How does that definition of science go? That something is only known when it occurs as predicted as a repeatable experiment? Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it to be science. That's religion (actually, it's more like a cult). Shemp, don't you think its good to err on the side of caution and do some things about protecting the environment rather than continuing on mindlessly? Yes, I would totally agree with that. And if erring on the side of caution means we do things like alternative energies and such, that's only a win-win. But that's NOT the kind of things that Al Gore wants to do. When he advocates things such as ethanol -- that is, food for fuel -- it is outrageously wrong...and it's killing the weakest of the world and that is simply a crime. Agreed totally, it's a really stupid idea and is being abused by farmers as a cash crop and is pushing up food prices worldwide. There is no try something different answer, we have to cut back because there is nothing to replace fossil fuels with, the energy stored from millions of years of ancient sunlight can't be replaced with stuff we grow today because we use 400 years worth every year. A bit of a shortfall eh? Carbon trading is also bullshit. So lets stop kidding ourselves and make the neccesary cutbacks, only we can't because that would ruin the economy. So, like I always say, whatever happens we are going to have to put up with it because man is like the proverbial lemming, except we know that jumping over the cliff is a stupid idea. Sure, let's do whatever we can to find cleaner energy sources but there shouldn't be such a horrible, negative cost to doing it. AND the first thing that Al Gore can do is declare: I was wrong; the debate is NOT over. Even some of the folks who hate all these carbon tax initiatives think its a good idea to conserve the environment. Note the word conserve. So we can guess you're not much of a conservative. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . As for the global warming thing, I am disappointed that Palin even SLIGHTLY acknowledged that ANY global warming was man-made. Catastrophic man-made global warming is a myth, it is completely an unfounded scientific notion, I love reading stuff here. You made a good point about the dangers of fundamentalism in government and then follow it up with your own kooky beliefs. Surely what we need at the helm is someone who can assess evidence and act reasonably whether it's climate science or paleontology. (Not to be confused with Palintology which is clearly nonsense). and it has already lead to the death of many thousands of people. Talk about mixing science with religion, Curtis! My gosh, global warming is a fanatical radical religion far worse and extreme than anything Sarah Palin may believe in regarding dinasaurs. Surreal. Hey, hey, AGJ, how many babies have you killed today? This should be yelled from every rooftop in America. Al Gore and his global warming cult are killing the poorest of the poor and this is the biggest issue of the decade as far as I'm concerned. And it is nutcase fundamentalism that is on the par with people like Barry Wright's belief that he witnessed levitation or fundamentalists who believe that Jesus will rise again. As for Bush's bad things outweighing the good well I'll be the first to agree with you on that...we just may disagree on which bad things are doing the outweighing. As for the Sonny Bono reference: I was actually referring to the U2 Bono who is a big Bush supporter, at least in things Third World and AIDS (I tried to make a funny). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/ I was referring to this. A president who does not understand how science works or even general principles of epistemology work causes other problems. His understanding about what would constitute good evidence of the situation in pre-war Iraq for example. Neither Bush nor Palin demonstrate clear thinking skills, they go with their gut. Palin does not need to know the causes of global warming before she goes in to fix the problem. Do you understand the implications of this style of thinking? Be that as it may, Curtis, you should be aware that George Bush leads the world in supporting and providing funds for both AIDS research and providing monies to the Third World to combat AIDS. And he has far surpassed Clinton in doing it and that's why people like Sonny Bono praise him for this. Sonny rose from the grave? His plan has many good and some bad points. In a country where rape is the biggest problem with the spread of AIDs his giving a third of the money for prevention towards abstinence education seems out of touch. Bush has done lots of good things Shemp. For me the bad things out weigh the good. YMMV. But I don't want another 4 years of anti intellectual bias in the White House. I don't believe that Joe Six Pack is able to handle the problems our world faces right now. I am looking for someone more...how shall I say it...elite. Yeah, that's it. I want a person in the White House who is much smarter than I am. And that doesn't raise the bar that high but it does clear the Prom Up-Do'd head of Sarah Palin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Sarah Palin believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 4,000 years ago (or whatever it is that she allegedly believes that everyone is up in arms about)... ...or... Believing that Jesus dying and being tortured on a wooden cross will wash away all your sins -- past, present, and future? I find the latter claim much more absurd, frightening, and indicative of mental illness than the former. And yet Barack Obama -- who, being a Christian, as he'll readily admit -- must necessarily subscribe to the latter. Judy already nailed this but that wont stop me. The confusion you are expressing about different areas of knowledge Shemp, is precisely why George Bush and God forbid Sarah Palin in the White House causes so much trouble for the advancement of scientific understanding of our lives. Thinking that the theory of evolution and mythology from an old book are on an epistemological par causes people in power to disregard the
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
wrote:
.
As for the global warming thing, I am disappointed that Palin
even
SLIGHTLY acknowledged that ANY global warming was man-made.
Catastrophic man-made global warming is a myth, it is completely
an
unfounded scientific notion,
I love reading stuff here. You made a good point about the dangers
of fundamentalism in government and then follow it up with your own
kooky beliefs.
Hell, I've got a lot of kooky beliefs...I'll be the first to admit it!
But if you're referring to my stance on catastrophic man-made global
warming, I can't be accused of it being a kooky belief because I'm
not the one with the belief: the Al Gore's of the world are!
You can say I am kooky for NOT sharing in their belief but I can't
have a belief -- kooky or otherwise -- if I choose not to believe in
something that has yet to happen ('cause, you see, catastrophic man-
made global warming isn't currently a reality...it may or may not
happen in the future but it isn't currently happening).
Surely what we need at the helm is someone who can
assess evidence and act reasonably whether it's climate science or
paleontology. (Not to be confused with Palintology which is clearly
nonsense).
and it has already lead to the death of
many thousands of people. Talk about mixing science with
religion,
Curtis! My gosh, global warming is a fanatical radical religion
far
worse and extreme than anything Sarah Palin may believe in
regarding
dinasaurs.
Surreal.
Hey, hey, AGJ, how many babies have you killed today? This
should
be yelled from every rooftop in America. Al Gore and his global
warming cult are killing the poorest of the poor and this is the
biggest issue of the decade as far as I'm concerned. And it is
nutcase fundamentalism that is on the par with people like Barry
Wright's belief that he witnessed levitation or fundamentalists
who
believe that Jesus will rise again.
As for Bush's bad things outweighing the good well I'll be the
first
to agree with you on that...we just may disagree on which bad
things
are doing the outweighing.
As for the Sonny Bono reference: I was actually referring to the
U2
Bono who is a big Bush supporter, at least in things Third World
and
AIDS (I tried to make a funny).
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/
I was referring to this.
A president who does not understand how science works or even
general
principles of epistemology work causes other problems. His
understanding about what would constitute good evidence of the
situation in pre-war Iraq for example.
Neither Bush nor Palin demonstrate clear thinking skills, they
go
with
their gut. Palin does not need to know the causes of global
warming
before she goes in to fix the problem. Do you understand the
implications of this style of thinking?
Be that as it may, Curtis, you should be aware that George
Bush
leads the world in supporting and providing funds for both AIDS
research and providing monies to the Third World to combat
AIDS.
And
he has far surpassed Clinton in doing it and that's why
people
like
Sonny Bono praise him for this.
Sonny rose from the grave?
His plan has many good and some bad points. In a country where
rape
is the biggest problem with the spread of AIDs his giving a
third
of
the money for prevention towards abstinence education seems out
of
touch.
Bush has done lots of good things Shemp. For me the bad things
out
weigh the good. YMMV. But I don't want another 4 years of anti
intellectual bias in the White House. I don't believe that Joe
Six
Pack is able to handle the problems our world faces right now.
I
am
looking for someone more...how shall I say it...elite. Yeah,
that's
it. I want a person in the White House who is much smarter
than
I
am.
And that doesn't raise the bar that high but it does clear the
Prom
Up-Do'd head of Sarah Palin.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk
shempmcgurk@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk
shempmcgurk@
wrote:
Sarah Palin believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth
with
humans
4,000 years ago (or whatever it is that she allegedly
believes
that
everyone is up in arms about)...
...or...
Believing that Jesus dying and being tortured on
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
On Oct 6, 2008, at 11:46 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: But if you're referring to my stance on catastrophic man-made global warming, I can't be accused of it being a kooky belief because I'm not the one with the belief: the Al Gore's of the world are! The ones with the kooky beliefs are the ones who fall for the dis- and mis-information campaign, largely lead by oil and coal interests, although often on the sly. Your confusion, along with many Right Wingers, is that this knee-jerk reaction by Big Oil et al. is real science. As a geology student we knew about greenhouse gas accumulation BACK IN THE 70's. What most people who have only been following this for the last decade or less do not realize is that Big Oil, et al. have been doing this seeding the ground with disinformation since long before manmade climate change became a front page or even newsworthy topic. They're no dumbies when it comes to looking after their own self-interest Shemp. Don't be so damn naive!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 6, 2008, at 11:46 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: But if you're referring to my stance on catastrophic man-made global warming, I can't be accused of it being a kooky belief because I'm not the one with the belief: the Al Gore's of the world are! The ones with the kooky beliefs are the ones who fall for the dis- and mis-information campaign, largely lead by oil and coal interests, although often on the sly. Your confusion, along with many Right Wingers, is that this knee-jerk reaction by Big Oil et al. is real science. As a geology student we knew about greenhouse gas accumulation BACK IN THE 70's. Yes, I remember what you geniuses were saying back then about global warming: http://tinyurl.com/3xfoak Didn't quite work out as you predicted, did it? It's like when a witness who has changed his testimony appears in court and is inevitably asked under cross examination: we know you're a liar because you've already been proven to be one; the question is, were you lying then or are you lying now? So back in the '70s it was an ice age that we were supposed to be in the middle of by the time the year 2008 rolled by. Gosh, that didn't happen. So the fear-mongers had to come up with a new strategy...so they changed their minds and decided that it would be the OPPOSITE that would happen: we'd all roast under increased warmth! So tell me: were you right back in the '70s? Or are you right now? What most people who have only been following this for the last decade or less do not realize is that Big Oil, et al. have been doing this seeding the ground with disinformation since long before manmade climate change became a front page or even newsworthy topic. They're no dumbies when it comes to looking after their own self-interest Shemp. Don't be so damn naive!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
On Oct 6, 2008, at 12:06 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Yes, I remember what you geniuses were saying back then about global warming: http://tinyurl.com/3xfoak Didn't quite work out as you predicted, did it? It's like when a witness who has changed his testimony appears in court and is inevitably asked under cross examination: we know you're a liar because you've already been proven to be one; the question is, were you lying then or are you lying now? So back in the '70s it was an ice age that we were supposed to be in the middle of by the time the year 2008 rolled by. Gosh, that didn't happen. So the fear-mongers had to come up with a new strategy...so they changed their minds and decided that it would be the OPPOSITE that would happen: we'd all roast under increased warmth! So tell me: were you right back in the '70s? Or are you right now? Actually what they were saying when I was in college is that there were two possible scenarios: potential ice age OR global warming. They just didn't know which one (c. 1978). The important thing was that they knew, way back then, that manmade climate change was a real possibility. The sad thing is that non-scientific interests have tried to muddy the waters ever since then. Thank god for Al Gore, he may have saved the planet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 6, 2008, at 12:06 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Yes, I remember what you geniuses were saying back then about global warming: http://tinyurl.com/3xfoak Didn't quite work out as you predicted, did it? It's like when a witness who has changed his testimony appears in court and is inevitably asked under cross examination: we know you're a liar because you've already been proven to be one; the question is, were you lying then or are you lying now? So back in the '70s it was an ice age that we were supposed to be in the middle of by the time the year 2008 rolled by. Gosh, that didn't happen. So the fear-mongers had to come up with a new strategy...so they changed their minds and decided that it would be the OPPOSITE that would happen: we'd all roast under increased warmth! So tell me: were you right back in the '70s? Or are you right now? Actually what they were saying when I was in college is that there were two possible scenarios: potential ice age OR global warming. They just didn't know which one (c. 1978). The important thing was that they knew, way back then, that manmade climate change was a real possibility. The sad thing is that non-scientific interests have tried to muddy the waters ever since then. Thank god for Al Gore, he may have saved the planet. Vaj, why couldn't there be a third possibility, such as THAT NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN? Why is it that the only possibilities had to be something catastrophic? And to now say, as you do, that the two possibilities were the two extremes -- extreme hot or extreme cold -- my gosh, I'm not a scientist but I think I'm on safe ground when I say that THAT is wacky and kooky stuff and not something that can be called science. How does that definition of science go? That something is only known when it occurs as predicted as a repeatable experiment? Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it to be science. That's religion (actually, it's more like a cult).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
shempmcgurk wrote: Vaj, why couldn't there be a third possibility, such as THAT NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN? Why is it that the only possibilities had to be something catastrophic? And to now say, as you do, that the two possibilities were the two extremes -- extreme hot or extreme cold -- my gosh, I'm not a scientist but I think I'm on safe ground when I say that THAT is wacky and kooky stuff and not something that can be called science. How does that definition of science go? That something is only known when it occurs as predicted as a repeatable experiment? Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it to be science. That's religion (actually, it's more like a cult). Shemp, don't you think its good to err on the side of caution and do some things about protecting the environment rather than continuing on mindlessly? Even some of the folks who hate all these carbon tax initiatives think its a good idea to conserve the environment. Note the word conserve. So we can guess you're not much of a conservative. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it to be science. Actually, you can postulate an infinite number of wildly different outcomes and claim it to be science. Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
On Oct 6, 2008, at 4:41 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it to be science. Actually, you can postulate an infinite number of wildly different outcomes and claim it to be science. Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? Aren't you confusing probabilities as used in quantum physics with actual, more Newtonian outcomes?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 6, 2008, at 4:41 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: [...] Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it to be science. Actually, you can postulate an infinite number of wildly different outcomes and claim it to be science. Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? Aren't you confusing probabilities as used in quantum physics with actual, more Newtonian outcomes? Um IF the outcomes can't be actual, than the probability would be zero, rather than incredibly small. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: Vaj, why couldn't there be a third possibility, such as THAT NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN? Why is it that the only possibilities had to be something catastrophic? And to now say, as you do, that the two possibilities were the two extremes -- extreme hot or extreme cold -- my gosh, I'm not a scientist but I think I'm on safe ground when I say that THAT is wacky and kooky stuff and not something that can be called science. How does that definition of science go? That something is only known when it occurs as predicted as a repeatable experiment? Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it to be science. That's religion (actually, it's more like a cult). Shemp, don't you think its good to err on the side of caution and do some things about protecting the environment rather than continuing on mindlessly? Yes, I would totally agree with that. And if erring on the side of caution means we do things like alternative energies and such, that's only a win-win. But that's NOT the kind of things that Al Gore wants to do. When he advocates things such as ethanol -- that is, food for fuel -- it is outrageously wrong...and it's killing the weakest of the world and that is simply a crime. Sure, let's do whatever we can to find cleaner energy sources but there shouldn't be such a horrible, negative cost to doing it. AND the first thing that Al Gore can do is declare: I was wrong; the debate is NOT over. Even some of the folks who hate all these carbon tax initiatives think its a good idea to conserve the environment. Note the word conserve. So we can guess you're not much of a conservative. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: [...] Well, you can't postulate two wildly opposite outcomes and claim it to be science. Actually, you can postulate an infinite number of wildly different outcomes and claim it to be science. Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? Lawson Interesting example. Yes, as I understand it, Quantum Mechanics does indeed postulate wildly different outcomes. But all of the outcomes (i.e. where the electron is going to be located) are quantified probabilities based upon many, many repetitions of collapsing the wave function (I don't know if collapsing is the right word to use) and then recording each time where it ends up. So out of 100 times of collapsing -- or localizing -- the electron, it may be located in sector A; 25 times in sector B; 4 times in sector C, etc. And all those possibilities taken together is the wave function. There is no wave function for catastrophic global warming because not even one instance of it has happened yet. Two different things. But thanks for bringing it up because it emphasizes my point: global warming is all conjecture into the future and no one knows what the hell will happen and there's very good evidence on the OTHER side that it won't do what the scaremongers say it will do. In related news, Fairbanks Alaska had the coldest start to winter in 16 years...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sarah Palin believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 4,000 years ago (or whatever it is that she allegedly believes that everyone is up in arms about)... ...or... Believing that Jesus dying and being tortured on a wooden cross will wash away all your sins -- past, present, and future? I find the latter claim much more absurd, frightening, and indicative of mental illness than the former. And yet Barack Obama -- who, being a Christian, as he'll readily admit -- must necessarily subscribe to the latter. The difference is that there's very strong evidence *against* the former--meaning that someone who believes in the dinosaur theory has little respect for science-- but none at all either for OR against the latter. Plus which, having your sins forgiven makes a difference only after you die. To my mind, if one believes in an afterlife that may be either heavenly or hellish, depending on whether one's sins have been forgiven, it's psychologically a lot healthier during one's life on earth to believe one is going to go to heaven when one dies than to fear that one is going to hell. There are different opinions within Christianity as to whether one can lose one's salvation. The once saved, always saved belief is more characteristic of fundamentalism; that's probably what Palin believes, but I suspect Obama doesn't. And, hell, for all we know he subscribes to the dinosaur theory as well! More likely, Palin believes *both* that she cannot lose her salvation *and* that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous, whereas Obama believes neither.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Sarah Palin believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 4,000 years ago (or whatever it is that she allegedly believes that everyone is up in arms about)... ...or... Believing that Jesus dying and being tortured on a wooden cross will wash away all your sins -- past, present, and future? I find the latter claim much more absurd, frightening, and indicative of mental illness than the former. And yet Barack Obama -- who, being a Christian, as he'll readily admit -- must necessarily subscribe to the latter. The difference is that there's very strong evidence *against* the former--meaning that someone who believes in the dinosaur theory has little respect for science-- but none at all either for OR against the latter. Plus which, having your sins forgiven makes a difference only after you die. To my mind, if one believes in an afterlife that may be either heavenly or hellish, depending on whether one's sins have been forgiven, it's psychologically a lot healthier during one's life on earth to believe one is going to go to heaven when one dies than to fear that one is going to hell. There are different opinions within Christianity as to whether one can lose one's salvation. The once saved, always saved belief is more characteristic of fundamentalism; that's probably what Palin believes, but I suspect Obama doesn't. And, hell, for all we know he subscribes to the dinosaur theory as well! More likely, Palin believes *both* that she cannot lose her salvation *and* that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous, whereas Obama believes neither. Gosh, I'd like to know what Obama believes in ANY area of knowledge, spiritual, political, or otherwise. I haven't a clue.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Sarah Palin believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 4,000 years ago (or whatever it is that she allegedly believes that everyone is up in arms about)... ...or... Believing that Jesus dying and being tortured on a wooden cross will wash away all your sins -- past, present, and future? I find the latter claim much more absurd, frightening, and indicative of mental illness than the former. And yet Barack Obama -- who, being a Christian, as he'll readily admit -- must necessarily subscribe to the latter. Judy already nailed this but that wont stop me. The confusion you are expressing about different areas of knowledge Shemp, is precisely why George Bush and God forbid Sarah Palin in the White House causes so much trouble for the advancement of scientific understanding of our lives. Thinking that the theory of evolution and mythology from an old book are on an epistemological par causes people in power to disregard the principles of science that help it transcend our tendency for intellectual delusions. Bush politicized science. It has hurt our country and mankind's growth of knowledge. I couldn't care less what wacky shit my president believes about what happens after he dies. I am at peace with the idea that people much more brilliant than I am may believe things that I consider fantasy. But if they can't articulate why it is wrong to teach creationism alongside evolution in science class, and not say as George Bush has that he wants all the points of view to be taught so people can make up their own minds, then they have no place governing our country at this critical time. Palin furthered our understanding about how her scientific mind works by twice asserting that she wasn't interested in discussing the causes of global warming, just git'n in thar an fix'n it all up. Palin's Joe Six Pack goes to the doctor: Dr. give me a whole bunch of pills cuz I've got a disease but I don't want to get into a discussion of what is causing it. The difference is that there's very strong evidence *against* the former--meaning that someone who believes in the dinosaur theory has little respect for science-- but none at all either for OR against the latter. Plus which, having your sins forgiven makes a difference only after you die. To my mind, if one believes in an afterlife that may be either heavenly or hellish, depending on whether one's sins have been forgiven, it's psychologically a lot healthier during one's life on earth to believe one is going to go to heaven when one dies than to fear that one is going to hell. There are different opinions within Christianity as to whether one can lose one's salvation. The once saved, always saved belief is more characteristic of fundamentalism; that's probably what Palin believes, but I suspect Obama doesn't. And, hell, for all we know he subscribes to the dinosaur theory as well! More likely, Palin believes *both* that she cannot lose her salvation *and* that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous, whereas Obama believes neither.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Sarah Palin believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 4,000 years ago (or whatever it is that she allegedly believes that everyone is up in arms about)... ...or... Believing that Jesus dying and being tortured on a wooden cross will wash away all your sins -- past, present, and future? I find the latter claim much more absurd, frightening, and indicative of mental illness than the former. And yet Barack Obama -- who, being a Christian, as he'll readily admit -- must necessarily subscribe to the latter. Judy already nailed this but that wont stop me. The confusion you are expressing about different areas of knowledge Shemp, is precisely why George Bush and God forbid Sarah Palin in the White House causes so much trouble for the advancement of scientific understanding of our lives. Thinking that the theory of evolution and mythology from an old book are on an epistemological par causes people in power to disregard the principles of science that help it transcend our tendency for intellectual delusions. Bush politicized science. It has hurt our country and mankind's growth of knowledge. The only possible thing you can be referring to here, Curtis, is the Bush policy on stem-cell research, 'cause that's pretty much the only thing Bush has put the Kabosh on in the area of science. And all that policy says is that the federal government won't give research money to any firm that engages in this practise. But that doesn't stop you, me, or anyone else from today opening up a research lab and doing any and all experiments on stem-cells...we just won't get money from the federal government. Indeed, if we're in CAlifornia and do that, Arnold and company will instead give us billions. So how is that hurting our country and mankind's growth of knowledge? Go ahead and work on stem-cell research; nothing is stopping you. Or perhaps I am wrong in assuming that stem-cell policy is what you are referring to. Perhaps it is something else. Like AIDS research? AIDS funding for the Third World? Well, I assume that that must be what you mean because you make reference to hurting the world and mankind's growth of knowledge and since AIDS is the world's leading scientific problem after the imagined global warming crisis, this is a good candidate for what you are referring to. Be that as it may, Curtis, you should be aware that George Bush leads the world in supporting and providing funds for both AIDS research and providing monies to the Third World to combat AIDS. And he has far surpassed Clinton in doing it and that's why people like Sonny Bono praise him for this. I couldn't care less what wacky shit my president believes about what happens after he dies. I am at peace with the idea that people much more brilliant than I am may believe things that I consider fantasy. But if they can't articulate why it is wrong to teach creationism alongside evolution in science class, and not say as George Bush has that he wants all the points of view to be taught so people can make up their own minds, then they have no place governing our country at this critical time. Palin furthered our understanding about how her scientific mind works by twice asserting that she wasn't interested in discussing the causes of global warming, just git'n in thar an fix'n it all up. Palin's Joe Six Pack goes to the doctor: Dr. give me a whole bunch of pills cuz I've got a disease but I don't want to get into a discussion of what is causing it. The difference is that there's very strong evidence *against* the former--meaning that someone who believes in the dinosaur theory has little respect for science-- but none at all either for OR against the latter. Plus which, having your sins forgiven makes a difference only after you die. To my mind, if one believes in an afterlife that may be either heavenly or hellish, depending on whether one's sins have been forgiven, it's psychologically a lot healthier during one's life on earth to believe one is going to go to heaven when one dies than to fear that one is going to hell. There are different opinions within Christianity as to whether one can lose one's salvation. The once saved, always saved belief is more characteristic of fundamentalism; that's probably what Palin believes, but I suspect Obama doesn't. And, hell, for all we know he subscribes to the dinosaur theory as well! More likely, Palin believes *both* that she cannot lose her salvation *and* that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous, whereas Obama believes neither.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Palin furthered our understanding about how her scientific mind works by twice asserting that she wasn't interested in discussing the causes of global warming, just git'n in thar an fix'n it all up. Palin's Joe Six Pack goes to the doctor: Dr. give me a whole bunch of pills cuz I've got a disease but I don't want to get into a discussion of what is causing it. Fortunately Sarah Silverman gets it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDYxGHGoFc Speaking of Sarah, funny video of her breaking the news to bf jimmy kimmel on his show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLG3S5WzHigfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/ I was referring to this. A president who does not understand how science works or even general principles of epistemology work causes other problems. His understanding about what would constitute good evidence of the situation in pre-war Iraq for example. Neither Bush nor Palin demonstrate clear thinking skills, they go with their gut. Palin does not need to know the causes of global warming before she goes in to fix the problem. Do you understand the implications of this style of thinking? Be that as it may, Curtis, you should be aware that George Bush leads the world in supporting and providing funds for both AIDS research and providing monies to the Third World to combat AIDS. And he has far surpassed Clinton in doing it and that's why people like Sonny Bono praise him for this. Sonny rose from the grave? His plan has many good and some bad points. In a country where rape is the biggest problem with the spread of AIDs his giving a third of the money for prevention towards abstinence education seems out of touch. Bush has done lots of good things Shemp. For me the bad things out weigh the good. YMMV. But I don't want another 4 years of anti intellectual bias in the White House. I don't believe that Joe Six Pack is able to handle the problems our world faces right now. I am looking for someone more...how shall I say it...elite. Yeah, that's it. I want a person in the White House who is much smarter than I am. And that doesn't raise the bar that high but it does clear the Prom Up-Do'd head of Sarah Palin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Sarah Palin believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 4,000 years ago (or whatever it is that she allegedly believes that everyone is up in arms about)... ...or... Believing that Jesus dying and being tortured on a wooden cross will wash away all your sins -- past, present, and future? I find the latter claim much more absurd, frightening, and indicative of mental illness than the former. And yet Barack Obama -- who, being a Christian, as he'll readily admit -- must necessarily subscribe to the latter. Judy already nailed this but that wont stop me. The confusion you are expressing about different areas of knowledge Shemp, is precisely why George Bush and God forbid Sarah Palin in the White House causes so much trouble for the advancement of scientific understanding of our lives. Thinking that the theory of evolution and mythology from an old book are on an epistemological par causes people in power to disregard the principles of science that help it transcend our tendency for intellectual delusions. Bush politicized science. It has hurt our country and mankind's growth of knowledge. The only possible thing you can be referring to here, Curtis, is the Bush policy on stem-cell research, 'cause that's pretty much the only thing Bush has put the Kabosh on in the area of science. And all that policy says is that the federal government won't give research money to any firm that engages in this practise. But that doesn't stop you, me, or anyone else from today opening up a research lab and doing any and all experiments on stem-cells...we just won't get money from the federal government. Indeed, if we're in CAlifornia and do that, Arnold and company will instead give us billions. So how is that hurting our country and mankind's growth of knowledge? Go ahead and work on stem-cell research; nothing is stopping you. Or perhaps I am wrong in assuming that stem-cell policy is what you are referring to. Perhaps it is something else. Like AIDS research? AIDS funding for the Third World? Well, I assume that that must be what you mean because you make reference to hurting the world and mankind's growth of knowledge and since AIDS is the world's leading scientific problem after the imagined global warming crisis, this is a good candidate for what you are referring to. Be that as it may, Curtis, you should be aware that George Bush leads the world in supporting and providing funds for both AIDS research and providing monies to the Third World to combat AIDS. And he has far surpassed Clinton in doing it and that's why people like Sonny Bono praise him for this. I couldn't care less what wacky shit my president believes about what happens after he dies. I am at peace with the idea that people much more brilliant than I am may believe things that I consider fantasy. But if they can't articulate why it is wrong to
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
But, Curtis, we were talking about nutcase-fundamentalism and its influence on the presidency and science...although I didn't read the entire article you linked to, the scientists' complaints were about things like mining techniques and endangered species, things that weren't so much influenced by Bush's religion as by other non- religious stances he may have. Sure, they also included that morning after pill as one of their complaints -- which was probably influenced by Bush's born-againism -- but that was by no means their major complaint. As for the global warming thing, I am disappointed that Palin even SLIGHTLY acknowledged that ANY global warming was man-made. Catastrophic man-made global warming is a myth, it is completely an unfounded scientific notion, and it has already lead to the death of many thousands of people. Talk about mixing science with religion, Curtis! My gosh, global warming is a fanatical radical religion far worse and extreme than anything Sarah Palin may believe in regarding dinasaurs. Hey, hey, AGJ, how many babies have you killed today? This should be yelled from every rooftop in America. Al Gore and his global warming cult are killing the poorest of the poor and this is the biggest issue of the decade as far as I'm concerned. And it is nutcase fundamentalism that is on the par with people like Barry Wright's belief that he witnessed levitation or fundamentalists who believe that Jesus will rise again. As for Bush's bad things outweighing the good well I'll be the first to agree with you on that...we just may disagree on which bad things are doing the outweighing. As for the Sonny Bono reference: I was actually referring to the U2 Bono who is a big Bush supporter, at least in things Third World and AIDS (I tried to make a funny). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/ I was referring to this. A president who does not understand how science works or even general principles of epistemology work causes other problems. His understanding about what would constitute good evidence of the situation in pre-war Iraq for example. Neither Bush nor Palin demonstrate clear thinking skills, they go with their gut. Palin does not need to know the causes of global warming before she goes in to fix the problem. Do you understand the implications of this style of thinking? Be that as it may, Curtis, you should be aware that George Bush leads the world in supporting and providing funds for both AIDS research and providing monies to the Third World to combat AIDS. And he has far surpassed Clinton in doing it and that's why people like Sonny Bono praise him for this. Sonny rose from the grave? His plan has many good and some bad points. In a country where rape is the biggest problem with the spread of AIDs his giving a third of the money for prevention towards abstinence education seems out of touch. Bush has done lots of good things Shemp. For me the bad things out weigh the good. YMMV. But I don't want another 4 years of anti intellectual bias in the White House. I don't believe that Joe Six Pack is able to handle the problems our world faces right now. I am looking for someone more...how shall I say it...elite. Yeah, that's it. I want a person in the White House who is much smarter than I am. And that doesn't raise the bar that high but it does clear the Prom Up-Do'd head of Sarah Palin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Sarah Palin believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 4,000 years ago (or whatever it is that she allegedly believes that everyone is up in arms about)... ...or... Believing that Jesus dying and being tortured on a wooden cross will wash away all your sins -- past, present, and future? I find the latter claim much more absurd, frightening, and indicative of mental illness than the former. And yet Barack Obama -- who, being a Christian, as he'll readily admit -- must necessarily subscribe to the latter. Judy already nailed this but that wont stop me. The confusion you are expressing about different areas of knowledge Shemp, is precisely why George Bush and God forbid Sarah Palin in the White House causes so much trouble for the advancement of scientific understanding of our lives. Thinking that the theory of evolution and mythology from an old book are on an epistemological par causes people in power to disregard the principles of science that help
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
On Oct 5, 2008, at 2:02 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Hey, hey, AGJ, how many babies have you killed today? This should be yelled from every rooftop in America. So yell it , shemp, and see what happens...I'm sure you can get special permission from the hospital staff at Bellevue to spend a few minutes on the roof, as long as someone accompanies you, that is... Al Gore and his global warming cult are killing the poorest of the poor Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 5, 2008, at 2:02 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Hey, hey, AGJ, how many babies have you killed today? This should be yelled from every rooftop in America. So yell it , shemp, and see what happens...I'm sure you can get special permission from the hospital staff at Bellevue to spend a few minutes on the roof, as long as someone accompanies you, that is... Al Gore and his global warming cult are killing the poorest of the poor Sal You don't give a rat's ass for how much the world's poor suffer, do you, Salvatore?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the global warming thing, I am disappointed that Palin even SLIGHTLY acknowledged that ANY global warming was man-made. Catastrophic man-made global warming is a myth, it is completely an unfounded scientific notion, and it has already lead to the death of many thousands of people. Talk about mixing science with religion, Curtis! My gosh, global warming is a fanatical radical religion far worse and extreme than anything Sarah Palin may believe in regarding dinasaurs. I Know! Everyone knows Global Warming is the result of a huge yagya performed by 10 million vedic gods -- and the heat is just due to the homa offerings into the fire. Plus since God made man, everything man makes is really made by God. So when man pollutes and produces carbon --- its all good cuz its Divine. And its Gods Will that the ice caps are melting, polar bears are losing habitat, going extinct, weather is going beserk, eco-systems are taking a huge dive an a billion -- mostly poor citizens of the world will lose homes and farmlands -- and those not killed start MASSIVE migrations and refugee camps larger than the World population a hundred years ago. And of course God created Al Gore -- so all of his efforts are ALSO DIVINE. Its all SOOO kewl. -- all preparation for the Rapture! Totally! I didn't get a BA from MIN like you Shemp, so I am not as much on the cutting edge of fundamentalist anti-science as you -- but I am doing my best to dig my head as deep into the sand as your education has done for you. I am truly glad that you, George Bush and Dick Cheney understand these things. Life is so much simpler when you can just ignore science and rational ways of life and get your world view from National Inquirer and Guns and Ammo. I only wished I had learned such a powerful paradigm like you -- right out of school. Jai the Middle Ages.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
Bush and Cheney are on YOUR side now on the global warming question, new.morning. So it is YOU on the side of fanatics and cult- worshipping nonsense. I am on the side of science and reason. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: As for the global warming thing, I am disappointed that Palin even SLIGHTLY acknowledged that ANY global warming was man-made. Catastrophic man-made global warming is a myth, it is completely an unfounded scientific notion, and it has already lead to the death of many thousands of people. Talk about mixing science with religion, Curtis! My gosh, global warming is a fanatical radical religion far worse and extreme than anything Sarah Palin may believe in regarding dinasaurs. I Know! Everyone knows Global Warming is the result of a huge yagya performed by 10 million vedic gods -- and the heat is just due to the homa offerings into the fire. Plus since God made man, everything man makes is really made by God. So when man pollutes and produces carbon --- its all good cuz its Divine. And its Gods Will that the ice caps are melting, polar bears are losing habitat, going extinct, weather is going beserk, eco-systems are taking a huge dive an a billion -- mostly poor citizens of the world will lose homes and farmlands -- and those not killed start MASSIVE migrations and refugee camps larger than the World population a hundred years ago. And of course God created Al Gore -- so all of his efforts are ALSO DIVINE. Its all SOOO kewl. -- all preparation for the Rapture! Totally! I didn't get a BA from MIN like you Shemp, so I am not as much on the cutting edge of fundamentalist anti-science as you -- but I am doing my best to dig my head as deep into the sand as your education has done for you. I am truly glad that you, George Bush and Dick Cheney understand these things. Life is so much simpler when you can just ignore science and rational ways of life and get your world view from National Inquirer and Guns and Ammo. I only wished I had learned such a powerful paradigm like you -- right out of school. Jai the Middle Ages.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What's more scary?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bush and Cheney are on YOUR side now on the global warming question, new.morning. So it is YOU on the side of fanatics and cult- worshipping nonsense. I am on the side of science and reason. Pre-Aristotle science? Science taught at MIU in the core course? It must be exhilarating to be to the right, and more anti-science than Bush or Cheney. You are indeed a Maverick! Sarah Palin should pick you as her running mate! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: As for the global warming thing, I am disappointed that Palin even SLIGHTLY acknowledged that ANY global warming was man-made. Catastrophic man-made global warming is a myth, it is completely an unfounded scientific notion, and it has already lead to the death of many thousands of people. Talk about mixing science with religion, Curtis! My gosh, global warming is a fanatical radical religion far worse and extreme than anything Sarah Palin may believe in regarding dinasaurs. I Know! Everyone knows Global Warming is the result of a huge yagya performed by 10 million vedic gods -- and the heat is just due to the homa offerings into the fire. Plus since God made man, everything man makes is really made by God. So when man pollutes and produces carbon --- its all good cuz its Divine. And its Gods Will that the ice caps are melting, polar bears are losing habitat, going extinct, weather is going beserk, eco-systems are taking a huge dive an a billion -- mostly poor citizens of the world will lose homes and farmlands -- and those not killed start MASSIVE migrations and refugee camps larger than the World population a hundred years ago. And of course God created Al Gore -- so all of his efforts are ALSO DIVINE. Its all SOOO kewl. -- all preparation for the Rapture! Totally! I didn't get a BA from MIN like you Shemp, so I am not as much on the cutting edge of fundamentalist anti-science as you -- but I am doing my best to dig my head as deep into the sand as your education has done for you. I am truly glad that you, George Bush and Dick Cheney understand these things. Life is so much simpler when you can just ignore science and rational ways of life and get your world view from National Inquirer and Guns and Ammo. I only wished I had learned such a powerful paradigm like you -- right out of school. Jai the Middle Ages.
