Is horse chestnut wood good for anything?

Nucular Reaction wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:04:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Top Spin
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax
>>> >> >>>it. This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the
>>> >> >>>ground while China and others not only keep freely trashing our
>>> >> >>>planet but also sell credits from the regions of wasteland where
>>> >> >>>they haven't developed any industry yet.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> And *your* plan is.....?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated
>>> >> > "problem"?
>>> >>
>>> >> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>>> >
>>> >The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
>>> >suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
>>> >forgery and lies.
>>> >
>>> >The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
>>> >
>>> >And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
>>> >suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
>>> >for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
>>> >Minimum",
>>> >
>>> >And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
>>> >data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
>>> >air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
>>> >
>>> >My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
>>> >designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
>>> >India and other "developing nations".
>>>
>>> Wow. What's it like to live in a simplistic world where everything is
>>> someone else's fault and all bad things are caused by some conspiracy?
>>>
>>> Global warming is real and most of it is caused by human activity.
>>> Just keep talking to your knuckle-dragging buddies and pass the
>>> problem to your kids and grandkids. If you don't have kids, thank you.
>>
>>I find it consistently amusing that the left, when challenged to
>>present facts supporting their point of view, inevitably resorts to
>>name calling instead.
>>
>>Where, exactly, is the peer-reviewed science that supports your thesis
>>that human beings are causing global warming?
>>
>>Citations, please.
>>
>>Secondary question: Do you support the US Democratic Party throwing
>>hundreds of billions of invented dollars at their friends in the
>>financial industries? If the answer is "yes", then please outline how
>>you are going to explain the created debt to your children and
>>grandchildren.
>>
>>And "We had to do it" does't count. Pleae explain why the sophisticated
>>and effective bankruptcy procedures are inadequate to deal with the
>>current situation, and don't ignore the hundreds of thousand of dollars
>>flowing directly back into political donations from the bailout money.
>
> Let's continue this in 4 or 8 years. I'm not smart enough to assess
> the Obama economic plan and you sure as hell aren't either. But we all
> know the result of the last 8 years. Obama says he will stimulate the
> economy and rebuilt the infrastructure and cut the deficit in half in
> 4 years. I'm going to give him a chance to prove it. Bush was a
> fucking liar and a criminal. It's going to be hard for Obama to sink
> below that.

... and you are a flippin' idiot. The last 8 years? What planet were you
on? The economic downturn only started in roughly the last 2 years. Who
was in charge of congress for the last 2 years?



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:04:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Top Spin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>> >> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>> >> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>> >> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>> >> >>>developed any industry yet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And *your* plan is.....?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>> >>
>> >> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>> >
>> >The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
>> >suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
>> >forgery and lies.
>> >
>> >The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
>> >
>> >And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
>> >suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
>> >for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
>> >Minimum",
>> >
>> >And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
>> >data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
>> >air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
>> >
>> >My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
>> >designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
>> >India and other "developing nations".
>>
>> Wow. What's it like to live in a simplistic world where everything is
>> someone else's fault and all bad things are caused by some conspiracy?
>>
>> Global warming is real and most of it is caused by human activity.
>> Just keep talking to your knuckle-dragging buddies and pass the
>> problem to your kids and grandkids. If you don't have kids, thank you.
>
>I find it consistently amusing that the left, when challenged to
>present facts supporting their point of view, inevitably resorts to
>name calling instead.
>
>Where, exactly, is the peer-reviewed science that supports your thesis
>that human beings are causing global warming?
>
>Citations, please.
>
>Secondary question: Do you support the US Democratic Party throwing
>hundreds of billions of invented dollars at their friends in the
>financial industries? If the answer is "yes", then please outline how
>you are going to explain the created debt to your children and
>grandchildren.
>
>And "We had to do it" does't count. Pleae explain why the sophisticated
>and effective bankruptcy procedures are inadequate to deal with the
>current situation, and don't ignore the hundreds of thousand of dollars
>flowing directly back into political donations from the bailout money.

Let's continue this in 4 or 8 years. I'm not smart enough to assess
the Obama economic plan and you sure as hell aren't either. But we all
know the result of the last 8 years. Obama says he will stimulate the
economy and rebuilt the infrastructure and cut the deficit in half in
4 years. I'm going to give him a chance to prove it. Bush was a
fucking liar and a criminal. It's going to be hard for Obama to sink
below that.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:45:39 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Three Lefts" wrote:
>>...everyone
>> has: an opinion and an asshole. And they both stink.
>
>And here I thought it was two things every asshole gets were
>hemorrhoids & cowboy boots.
>
>Live and learn.
>
>Lew

Any reason both can't be true? ;-)

Top Spin wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:46:01 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
>>Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <[email protected]>, Lurfys Maw
>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.
>>> >
>>> > That's okay. You still have an opportunity to learn something.
>>>
>>> Kind of funny how the solution to all these crises is increased
>>> government
>>> control, significantly higher taxes, and destruction of years of
>>> technical progress.
>>
>>Not funny at all. We still haven't decided here in Canada to give a
>>majority government to our conservative side, but the left is running
>>scared.
>>
>>I feel for the US of A. The damage being done is going be deep and long
>>lasting, but there do seem to be signs the Dems are already starting to
>>eat themselves from within... They're going to hurt you bad in the next
>>four years, though.
>
> We could have elected Bernie Madoff and still been 1,000 times better
> off than the damage done by Bush and Cheney. It's hilarious watching
> conservatives defending Bush. Dittoheads.

Please, if you are going to be insulting, at least have the intelligence
not to mix your ad hominems. "Bushies" is the derogatory established for
those defending Bush (or fascists, nazis, whatever the vogue of the day in
your leftie circles at the time). "Dittoheads" only applies when you are
denigrating those who listen to, or agree with Rush Limbaugh. Don't they
teach you anything in your nutroots classes?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:46:01 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
>Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Lurfys Maw
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.
>> >
>> > That's okay. You still have an opportunity to learn something.
>>
>> Kind of funny how the solution to all these crises is increased government
>> control, significantly higher taxes, and destruction of years of technical
>> progress.
>
>Not funny at all. We still haven't decided here in Canada to give a
>majority government to our conservative side, but the left is running
>scared.
>
>I feel for the US of A. The damage being done is going be deep and long
>lasting, but there do seem to be signs the Dems are already starting to
>eat themselves from within... They're going to hurt you bad in the next
>four years, though.

We could have elected Bernie Madoff and still been 1,000 times better
off than the damage done by Bush and Cheney. It's hilarious watching
conservatives defending Bush. Dittoheads.

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
> >> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
> >> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
> >> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
> >> >>>developed any industry yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> And *your* plan is.....?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
> >>
> >> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
> >
> >The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
> >suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
> >forgery and lies.
> >
> >The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
> >
> >And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
> >suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
> >for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
> >Minimum",
> >
> >And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
> >data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
> >air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
> >
> >My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
> >designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
> >India and other "developing nations".
>
> Let me see if I got this right. There is a giant cabal of (mostly
> Western) scientists that have cooked up this global warming conspiracy
> to help China and India?
>
> Whoa, skippy. You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Flat Earth
> Society, would you?

Nope. I just know how to do basic investigation of what's being
reported by real scientists.

In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> So, given the fact that anything that happens is now "proof" of global
> man-made climate change, what would be required to disprove the hypothesis?

Considering the latest pronouncements are along the lines of "Yeah,
well it may be on hold NOW, but just wait 30 or 50 years years and it's
all going to happen AT ONCE" I think the hypothesis has been pretty
much disproven.

Of course, that won't stop world governments from using the issue as
another excuse to steal money.

In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
> > Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> So, given the fact that anything that happens is now "proof" of global
> >> man-made climate change, what would be required to disprove the hypothesis?
> >
> > Considering the latest pronouncements are along the lines of "Yeah,
> > well it may be on hold NOW, but just wait 30 or 50 years years and it's
> > all going to happen AT ONCE" I think the hypothesis has been pretty
> > much disproven.
> >
> > Of course, that won't stop world governments from using the issue as
> > another excuse to steal money.
>
> I might suggest that you Google (didn't somebody say that Google is your
> friend?) on "climate changes". For some basic information look at the
> EPA web pages and perhaps Wikipedia. This will get you past Rush at
> least. Utilize some of the references given in these sites to pursue
> specific areas of your interest. A LOT of scholarship is available to
> bring you up to speed on the various forces involved in climatic changes.

You're believing that Wikipedia is a valid source for scientific
reference on anything beyond basic geometry? Seriously?

I actually drafted a longer reply with citations and web links to real
research, but this is way off topic, and you wouldn't listen anyway.

Oh, BTW... who's this "Rush" you refer to? I don't live in the US, so I
may have an imperfect understanding of how fucked up your country is at
this particular point in time, though from what I'm reading about your
president (PBUH) and your congress, things seem pretty bad there, what
with all the people in power getting cash from AIG while screaming
about $165 out of $180,000. I'd add the zeros, but it seems like the
American public doesn't understand the decimal system, and scaling.

And, of course, the fact that Obamessiah and Dodd both got over
$100,000 from AIG means nothing...

How's THAT for hijacking a thread?

In article <[email protected]>, Lurfys Maw
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.

That's okay. You still have an opportunity to learn something.

In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Lurfys Maw
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.
> >
> > That's okay. You still have an opportunity to learn something.
>
> Kind of funny how the solution to all these crises is increased government
> control, significantly higher taxes, and destruction of years of technical
> progress.

Not funny at all. We still haven't decided here in Canada to give a
majority government to our conservative side, but the left is running
scared.

I feel for the US of A. The damage being done is going be deep and long
lasting, but there do seem to be signs the Dems are already starting to
eat themselves from within... They're going to hurt you bad in the next
four years, though.

In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lurfys Maw wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:57:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>[email protected] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
> >>>>>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
> >>>>>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
> >>>>>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
> >>>>>>developed any industry yet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And *your* plan is.....?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
> >>>
> >>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
> >>
> >> Umm, yes. Lots of bombast, little, if any, real science.
> >
> > ...and your degree is in what? Did you even finish high school?
>
> As I said, lots of bombast, little science. I guess I should also have
> added "with a bunch of ad hominem thrown in".
>
> Just to assuage your petty little taunt: Master of Science in Electrical
> Engineering. I've spent a number of years doing modeling and simulation as
> well as work analyzing and evaluating both models and system performance
> for various systems. I KNOW the difficulty, even when I have direct
> control of a large number of a CONTROLLED test's parameters to obtain
> results from very sophisticated models that accurately predict a system's
> performance in statistically meaningful terms. That is one reason I laugh
> in derision at all of these so-called experts using their models to predict
> catastrophic climate change resulting from predicted temperature changes at
> single or decimal increments of degrees based upon data that includes such
> silliness as using tree-ring data to assess temperature data thousands of
> years ago and attempting to predict the behavior of a chaotic system with
> so many variables and closed-loop control cycles such that model fidelity
> to that level of precision is ridiculous.

Or, as my dad says: "Those idiots can't predict YESTERDAY properly."

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You might benefit from asking yourself why you seem unable to engage in
> rational debate without personally abusing those who disagree with you.

Is that anything like you calling me a liar, my offering to categorically
prove I was telling you the truth and you backing down?

Maybe YOU might benefit from asking yourself why you attacked Robatory with
a derogatory comment while in the very same message you cried to me about
abuse? Shall I quote the message back to you? I've been saving it just for
times like this.
You're a Big Crybaby who is wholly unable to follow his own advice.

So.Go Fuck Yourself Miller!!!

And thanks. I asked myself if I should swear at you again and realized that
I'd benefit immensely from letting those few who didn't know, what kind of
Flakey Asshole you are.

In article <[email protected]>, Top Spin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
> >> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
> >> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
> >> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
> >> >>>developed any industry yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> And *your* plan is.....?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
> >>
> >> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
> >
> >The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
> >suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
> >forgery and lies.
> >
> >The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
> >
> >And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
> >suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
> >for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
> >Minimum",
> >
> >And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
> >data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
> >air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
> >
> >My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
> >designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
> >India and other "developing nations".
>
> Wow. What's it like to live in a simplistic world where everything is
> someone else's fault and all bad things are caused by some conspiracy?
>
> Global warming is real and most of it is caused by human activity.
> Just keep talking to your knuckle-dragging buddies and pass the
> problem to your kids and grandkids. If you don't have kids, thank you.

I find it consistently amusing that the left, when challenged to
present facts supporting their point of view, inevitably resorts to
name calling instead.

Where, exactly, is the peer-reviewed science that supports your thesis
that human beings are causing global warming?

Citations, please.

Secondary question: Do you support the US Democratic Party throwing
hundreds of billions of invented dollars at their friends in the
financial industries? If the answer is "yes", then please outline how
you are going to explain the created debt to your children and
grandchildren.

And "We had to do it" does't count. Pleae explain why the sophisticated
and effective bankruptcy procedures are inadequate to deal with the
current situation, and don't ignore the hundreds of thousand of dollars
flowing directly back into political donations from the bailout money.

In article <[email protected]>, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Three Lefts
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> ><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >[email protected] wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
> >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
> >>> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
> >>> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
> >>> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
> >>> >>>developed any industry yet.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> And *your* plan is.....?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
> >>>
> >>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
> >>
> >>The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
> >>suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
> >>forgery and lies.
> >>
> >>The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
> >>
> >>And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
> >>suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
> >>for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
> >>Minimum",
> >>
> >>And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
> >>data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
> >>air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
> >>
> >>My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
> >>designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
> >>India and other "developing nations".
> >
> >Hilarious. Here's living proof that there are two things that everyone
> >has: an opinion and an asshole. And they both stink. Your opinion
> >certainly qualifies.
>
> Hint: personally abusing your opponent in a debate makes it obvious to all
> observers that you are unable to win the debate on the merits of your
> arguments.

Well, considering that respected scientists are demolishing the
arguments for AGW weekly, abuse is all they have to fall back on.

In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:53:34 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > Well, considering that respected scientists are demolishing the
> > arguments for AGW weekly, abuse is all they have to fall back on.
>
> I'm always curious when people quote "respected scientists" as to whom
> they're referring. Would you please give some names and lists of peer-
> reviewed articles on the subject that they've published in the
> appropriate scientific journals?

I can certainly provide some links to relevant reporting on those
articles.

But if you're interested in the subject, why not do your own research?

Anyway, here are some starting points (be sure to read the comments...
actual scientists are posting):

<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-
to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/>

<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/23/how-not-to-measure-temperature-pa
rt-85-what-katrina-did-for-temperature-measurement/>

<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/22/weather-station-data-raw-or-adjus
ted/>

<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/21/this-is-why-you-dont-put-an-offic
ial-noaa-temperature-sensor-over-concrete/>

And, in case you are wondering about that pesky IPCC report, there are
now 700 scientists disputing its conclusions, as compared to the 50 or
so who wrote it:

<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conten
tRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7>

<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.htm
l>

<http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=189>

> And if that information is available to you, an approximation of the
> numbers of those articles compared to the number supporting man caused/
> enhanced global warming would be helpful.

That information is not available to me. But I'm curious, why is the
number of articles relevant? There are a lot more people who own $300
direct drive table saws than $3000 cabinet saws. Does that mean they
know more about woodworking and are better able to offer advice?

In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> > That information is not available to me. But I'm curious, why is the
> > number of articles relevant? There are a lot more people who own $300
> > direct drive table saws than $3000 cabinet saws. Does that mean they
> > know more about woodworking and are better able to offer advice?
>
> Depends. An ability to throw money at a something doesn't mean one is more
> qualified to comment. I'd argue that many woodworkers building things are
> more skilled at the craft because they have the ability to compensate for
> deficiencies in their equipment.
>
> This is despite the argument that some who are willing to spend the money
> for better equipment might be considered to be more dedicated to woodworking
> and be more knowledgably skilled. It doesn't however, belie the fact that
> after a point, the preponderance of evidence usually points to the correct
> conclusion.

Until somebody exposes the interpretation of the evidence as false. The
earth is not flat. Bumblebees can fly. The human body can survive
speeds in excess of 30 mph. The sun does not orbit the earth. There are
more than four elements, and they are not earth, air, fire and water.

Anthromorphic Global Warming has become an orthodoxy. That orthodoxy is
being successfully challenged, and the orthodox can do nothing but
scream "BLASPHEMER!" in response.

52 scientistist wrote the political document for the IPCC that has
become the Koran of the AGW proponents. Today, more than 700 scientists
are saying they disagree with its conclusions.

The data the AGW proponents have used is being shown to be either
severely suspect or deliberately misrepresented or falsified, and they
are howling as a result.

In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> >>> That information is not available to me. But I'm curious, why is the
> >>> number of articles relevant? There are a lot more people who own $300
> >>> direct drive table saws than $3000 cabinet saws. Does that mean they
> >>> know more about woodworking and are better able to offer advice?
> >> Depends. An ability to throw money at a something doesn't mean one is more
> >> qualified to comment. I'd argue that many woodworkers building things are
> >> more skilled at the craft because they have the ability to compensate for
> >> deficiencies in their equipment.
> >>
> >> This is despite the argument that some who are willing to spend the money
> >> for better equipment might be considered to be more dedicated to
> >> woodworking
> >> and be more knowledgably skilled. It doesn't however, belie the fact that
> >> after a point, the preponderance of evidence usually points to the correct
> >> conclusion.
> >
> > Until somebody exposes the interpretation of the evidence as false. The
> > earth is not flat. Bumblebees can fly. The human body can survive
> > speeds in excess of 30 mph. The sun does not orbit the earth. There are
> > more than four elements, and they are not earth, air, fire and water.
> >
> > Anthromorphic Global Warming has become an orthodoxy. That orthodoxy is
> > being successfully challenged, and the orthodox can do nothing but
> > scream "BLASPHEMER!" in response.
> >
> > 52 scientistist wrote the political document for the IPCC that has
> > become the Koran of the AGW proponents. Today, more than 700 scientists
> > are saying they disagree with its conclusions.
> >
> > The data the AGW proponents have used is being shown to be either
> > severely suspect or deliberately misrepresented or falsified, and they
> > are howling as a result.
>
> As I said before, this is undoubtedly a waste of time since your beliefs
> are strong.

> However, look at
> http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
> for a decent summary of some of the topics that deniers embrace.

"Denier". Your use of the term is revealing. You are welcome to your
orthodoxy. I do not embrace it.

"Topics". Not "evidence". Your use of the one term and not the other is
revealing. You are welcome to your orthodoxy. I do not embrace it.

I'm a skeptic, in the tried, true and honest definition of the word.

I'm looking at the arguments and evidence for and against the existence
of AGW, and the evidence supporting AGW is, in my analysis, severely
lacking and the evidence against AGW is, in my analysis, growing
stronger and stronger.

> I think you DO know who Rush is.

I've heard of him, and seen and read some news reports and commentary
about him and the people who hate him. I have never listened to him, as
I don't live in the US, and don't really care for the American style of
blow-hard pundit talk radio regardless of the politics of the blow-hard
pundit. Which is why I rarely listen to the radio when I do travel to
the US. It's pretty much crap.

In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> > Until somebody exposes the interpretation of the evidence as false. The
> > earth is not flat. Bumblebees can fly.
>
> Or, until somebody proves the interpretation as being true. Maybe an earth
> wide average 10° rise in temperature might convince people. Or perhaps, a
> catastrophic 20' rise in the world's oceans might convince people. Are you
> so sure of yourself as to ignore the possibility of these things happening?
> If you are, then your decedents, god help them might well have to live their
> shortened lives knowing that arrogance killed them.
>
> As to your bumblebee flying, scientists for thousands of years said that man
> would never fly. Time and a very few enterprising people proved them wrong.
> Only, flying isn't likely to end life of earth. It might in time however,
> move remaining life to another planet.
>
> I don't know what is true as far as climate conditions go, I don't have
> knowledge or ability to do much about it. But, I do know that man is mostly
> a selfish, self involved animal and uses things up exponentionally. It maybe
> not now, but in the foreseeable future, unless man experiences a revelation,
> he *will* use up this planet. That's a certainty.

IMaybe killer robots from Venus will descend on the Earth and vaporize
us all with their lazer eyes. Are you so sure of yourself to ignore
THAT possibility?

As for your "knowledge" about "man"... I think you're projecting.

Oh, dear... Now I'll be accused of being a "denier" again.

In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> > Oh, dear... Now I'll be accused of being a "denier" again.
>
> No. Just another one of those self involved ignorant species of man that I
> mentioned.

And back to the name-calling, instead of formulating an argument and
presenting evidence.

In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> Given the fact that global average temperature has been falling since
> 1998 -- a fact NOT predicted by AGW models, and that the AGW alarmists
> have now postponed GW doom for 50 years, perhaps the problem of belief and
> orthodoxy is not on the part of those who do not subscribe to the AGW
> faith. (oops, now climate change since the warming part didn't work out)

BLASPHEMER!

JUST YOU WAIT. IN 50 YEARS, THERE'S GOING TO BE GLOBAL WARMING LIKE YOU
WON'T BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But Al Gore will continue to profit selling carbon credits between his
own companies while maintaining a larger "carbon footprint" than most
people on the planet.

Peace be upon him.

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> That information is not available to me. But I'm curious, why is the
> number of articles relevant? There are a lot more people who own $300
> direct drive table saws than $3000 cabinet saws. Does that mean they
> know more about woodworking and are better able to offer advice?

Depends. An ability to throw money at a something doesn't mean one is more
qualified to comment. I'd argue that many woodworkers building things are
more skilled at the craft because they have the ability to compensate for
deficiencies in their equipment.

This is despite the argument that some who are willing to spend the money
for better equipment might be considered to be more dedicated to woodworking
and be more knowledgably skilled. It doesn't however, belie the fact that
after a point, the preponderance of evidence usually points to the correct
conclusion.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>> >>>
>> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>> >>>developed any industry yet.
>> >>
>> >> And *your* plan is.....?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>
>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>
>The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
>suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
>forgery and lies.
>
>The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
>
>And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
>suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
>for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
>Minimum",
>
>And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
>data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
>air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
>
>My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
>designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
>India and other "developing nations".

Let me see if I got this right. There is a giant cabal of (mostly
Western) scientists that have cooked up this global warming conspiracy
to help China and India?

Whoa, skippy. You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Flat Earth
Society, would you?

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> Until somebody exposes the interpretation of the evidence as false. The
> earth is not flat. Bumblebees can fly.

Or, until somebody proves the interpretation as being true. Maybe an earth
wide average 10° rise in temperature might convince people. Or perhaps, a
catastrophic 20' rise in the world's oceans might convince people. Are you
so sure of yourself as to ignore the possibility of these things happening?
If you are, then your decedents, god help them might well have to live their
shortened lives knowing that arrogance killed them.

As to your bumblebee flying, scientists for thousands of years said that man
would never fly. Time and a very few enterprising people proved them wrong.
Only, flying isn't likely to end life of earth. It might in time however,
move remaining life to another planet.

I don't know what is true as far as climate conditions go, I don't have
knowledge or ability to do much about it. But, I do know that man is mostly
a selfish, self involved animal and uses things up exponentionally. It maybe
not now, but in the foreseeable future, unless man experiences a revelation,
he *will* use up this planet. That's a certainty.

[email protected] writes:
>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >[email protected] wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>>> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>>> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>>> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>>> >>>developed any industry yet.
>>> >>
>>> >> And *your* plan is.....?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>>
>>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>>
>>The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
>>suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
>>forgery and lies.
>>
>>The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
>>
>>And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
>>suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
>>for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
>>Minimum",
>>
>>And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
>>data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
>>air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
>>
>>My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
>>designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
>>India and other "developing nations".
>
>Let me see if I got this right. There is a giant cabal of (mostly
>Western) scientists that have cooked up this global warming conspiracy
>to help China and India?

It is certainly not a _giant cabal_. In reality, the IPCC report was
written by a small handful of scientists; and any disagreement with
each of the chapter editors was met with silence or derision.

When a soi disant scientist recommends prison for anyone who disagrees
with him, he stops being a scientist (James Hanson).

While there is no doubt that the climate has changed since the beginning
of the last interglacial, and sea level has risen over one hundred meters
in the last 10,000 years, one should not expect either to become static
in the 20th (or 21st) centuries.

The statistical manipulations used to attempt to tease out a global average
temperature 200 years ago (much less 1000 years ago) have been pretty
roundly criticized by real statisticians (see Wegner, et. al., M&M 2007
and the NAS panel report).

The idea the a precipitation proxy (tree ring widths in thousand year
old strip-bark trees in the Sierra Nevada) is also a viable temperature
proxy (with tenth of a degree C accuracy) is ludicrous; yet much of
Dr. Mann's dendrochronological research (and spurious results such as
the so-called hockey stick) based on such proxies has been shown to be
flawed statistically and methodologically.

Science, in any discipline, is never "settled".

scott

Robatoy wrote:

> When lending money was unregulated, the insurance of same was also
> unregulated, the fox ate the chicken. (Eskimo fable) You cannot trust
> greedy people who use money to keep score of their 'success'.

<Time For A Reality Injection>

Sorry, but you are dead wrong about several things in this paragraph:

1) Money lending is not unregulated. Banking is a fairly regulated
industry throughout most of the West anyway.

2) Ditto insurance - also a regulated industry, in the US it is done
primarily by the States.

What went wrong here was multiple course of *government* intervention
of the worst kind:

1) The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts
like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior
by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not
qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers
they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government"
would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted.
This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their
mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing
they'd never have to eat the downside. IOW, the very *regulation*
that required banks to set lending standards when qualifying
borrowers was *thwarted by the repulsive leftwing social justice
idiots in government.* It was not a *lack* of regulation that
caused it. It was the banks being *forced to ignore the regulation*
by their own government that caused the problem.

2) When the silliness of the banks became evident, the *government*
stepped in to try and save them from their bad decisions on the
grounds that they were "too big too fail." Evidently, neither
Bush nor the Obamessiah actually believe in market economies
and could/can not comprehend that letting the banks/AIG fail is
*exactly* what is needed here to clear all those toxic assets off
their books in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The banks/AIG acted foolishly and should have been left to their
own recovery.

W acted stupidly and prematurely and is properly condemned for his
ridiculous bailout spending.

Obamessiah is acting *purposely* and with great malice toward market
economies so as to install his socialist idiocy. He has managed to
sell this as the bank's fault to the sheeple (as have his communist-lite
fellow travelers around the world) while managing to keep most of
the spotlight off the evil little trolls like Carter and Frank who
actually precipitated the root causes of this whole mess.

The good news is that money and economies are neither neocon nor
drooling-idiot liberal institutions. Economies happily ignore
the ideological stupidities of either group. The Obamessiah's
spending binge is a self-limiting problem that - while it is likely
to result in vast destruction of Western wealth and American
prestige - may have the salutary effect of reminding a new
generation - the same silly children that voted for the Hopechangey
Administration - just why their elders fought the cold war in opposition
to the socialist/collectivist/communist regimes of the 20th century.
Perhaps a few hundred million starving in the Western world will
serve to teach them never to entrust their freedom and future to
political offal like the current POTUS.

P.S. Don't forget to turn ON every light in your house at 8:30pm local
time tonight.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Well from what I can make of all the confusing hype written about sea
level increase on Wikipedia, written by global warming alarmist is
from 18 to 80 inches in the next 100 years, although all of that is
prefaced on a rapid expansion beyond todays consistent rate of about 1
to 2 mm per year.

I assume that this global warming will wipe us out since the
population explosion, ice age and famine all predicted by the same
wack jobs seemed to have never materialized.


On Mar 20, 10:28=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:57:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>[email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>
> >>>>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax i=
t.
> >>>>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground whil=
e
> >>>>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
> >>>>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
> >>>>>developed any industry yet.
>
> >>>> And *your* plan is.....?
>
> >>> =A0Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "probl=
em"?
>
> >> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>
> > =A0Umm, yes. =A0Lots of bombast, little, if any, real science.
>
> If you live within 20-30 feet of sea level and plan to live more than
> 40-50 years, I suggest you sell and move to higher ground.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:17 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> IOW, the very *regulation*
>> that required banks to set lending standards when qualifying
>> borrowers was *thwarted by the repulsive leftwing social justice
>> idiots in government.* It was not a *lack* of regulation that
>> caused it. It was the banks being *forced to ignore the regulation*
>> by their own government that caused the problem.
>
> LOL.
> Didn't the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act change the regulators required?

Not as regards to this issue, as best as I understand it.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed commercial and investment banks to merge which
does not directly bear on the government forcing retail mortgage
banks to give Wanda The Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she
could in no way actually afford.

Note that I am NOT defending the banks or insurance companies here.
They acted stupidly and placed their faith blindly in a quant model
that they never really shook out thoroughly. See:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant

But there is a simple way to solve the bad banking decisions: Let them
go under and let a healthier bank buy the assets at a discount in
bankruptcy court. This is an orderly and well understood process we've
used for a very long time to cleanup messes of this sort. First W,
and now - in a hugely bigger way - Obamessiah are just delaying this
kind of healthful market correction by their incessant market meddling
and wasting all of our money. Unlike W, however, Obamessiah is
doing this *intentionally* which makes him doubly scary...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:48:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> All of this is more-or-less true, but you're missing the point. The CRA
>> created an *environment* or a *mentality* in which the bankers became
>> comfortable with laying off risk to the public taxpayer
>
> And I'll give you the point that the banks caved in, although I doubt it
> was as extensive as you claim. Too many banks, including mine, rode out
> the housing bubble with few or no problems. But again, banks, even under
> pressure, didn't make most of the bad loans. Non-bank finance companies
> did and they were under no government pressure.
>
> The banks lost more money buying those securities than they did on bad
> mortgages they made. And they also lost some money they loaned to the
> non-bank mortgagors.
>
> And we haven't even discussed the hedge funds that also bought the
> securitized mortgages.
>
> Mortgage brokers, finance companies, and hedge funds were all
> unregulated. Could the government have prevented a lot of the crisis
> with good regulation? Yes. Would they have crafted "good" regulations?
> That's open to question :-).

I cannot think of any case in my lifetime where government regulation
has been particularly effective in reducing fraud or stupidity.
Regulation only works when the regulated are behaving in a sane manner ...
in which case the regulation is largely unnecessary.

>
> I noted the news last night stated that legislators of both parties are
> getting campaign contributions from executives of bailed out firms - the
> dance goes on.
>
>

Exactly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
.. snip
>
>> I think you DO know who Rush is.
>
> I've heard of him, and seen and read some news reports and commentary
> about him and the people who hate him. I have never listened to him, as
> I don't live in the US, and don't really care for the American style of
> blow-hard pundit talk radio regardless of the politics of the blow-hard
> pundit. Which is why I rarely listen to the radio when I do travel to
> the US. It's pretty much crap.

You see, in the mind of those on the left, if one holds conservative
values it cannot be because the conservative has looked at history and
observed what has worked, looked at how this nation has prospered because
of economic freedom and the ability to keep much of the fruits of one's
labors, or observed how, in every place it has been tried, the socialist
agenda being promoted has always produced more poverty, more misery, and
left its people lacking for even basic necessities. No, in the mind of the
left, if one holds conservative values, it is because you are a mindless
drone who has been brainwashed by someone such as Rush.

The funny thing is, this is simple projection -- for the most part, the
left doesn't *think*, it *feels*. Decisions are made with emotions. You
see people who are poor? Of course it just *feels* right that money should
be taken from those considered rich and given to the poor. The fact that
trillions of dollars have been spent this way since the 60's and those in
poor areas are worse off now than before doesn't matter. It *felt* like
the right thing to do and the people who did so should be judged by their
intentions, not the results and unintended consequences. The ones being
led are those on the left who are pushed by the media and their leaders to
*feel* the problems pointed out and to use those *feelings* to support
those in power who want to continue the failed policies of the past, or to
implement policies that have been shown not to work all over the world --
only this time, their chosen, caring leaders are going to do it better, and
it's going to work *this* time.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Mar 28, 1:25=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >> ''' looked at how this nation has prospered because of economic
> > freedom ...
>
> > You really have the nerve to claim that given the current economic
> > crisis? =A0And you say liberals are illogical?
>
> > Unregulated free markets work great when everybody involved has the
> > common good as a goal. =A0That's about as likely as the communist dogma
> > that man could be perfected :-).
>
> =A0 You really have the nerve to say that the crisis we are currently in =
is
> the result of a free, unregulated market?

When lending money was unregulated, the insurance of same was also
unregulated, the fox ate the chicken. (Eskimo fable) You cannot trust
greedy people who use money to keep score of their 'success'.=A0

>Yeah, liberals are definitely
> illogical

I tend to see and subscribe to the ideological side of what used to be
called conservatism. That, however, is miles removed from having one's
head in the clouds and insisting that "if left alone, they will
regulate themselves." Well, Mark, they WERE left alone and the just
couldn't help them selves from helping themselves. The fox ate the
chicken. YOUR version of conservatism refuses to overlook the fact
that you cannot trust greedy foxes. Just because YOU are a
trustworthy, upright man with a solid Christian ethic does NOT mean
that those crazies at AIG et al, are like you. To think there is an
honesty component in that crowd....is naive.

>(and don't have any sense of history either).

Let the record show that you refuse to admit that history makes it
really clear that banks, insurance companies, and gamblers cannot stop
themselves from screwing whoever they can....even after their so-
called demise, they still manage to screw the serfs.

I am not defending the Left, as they are clearly on the same path as
the previous bunch, but I can't stand it when the Right is being
defended as 'self-regulators'.. because that is just plain
incorrect...please DO check history, Mark. Your version is
revisionist. You'd do well as a Legacy Adjuster for your hero, W.

SOMEbody Made-off with a lot of money.
>

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:26:04 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

>> I'm always curious when people quote "respected scientists" as to whom
>> they're referring. Would you please give some names and lists of peer-
>> reviewed articles on the subject that they've published in the
>> appropriate scientific journals?
>
> I can certainly provide some links to relevant reporting on those
> articles.
>
> But if you're interested in the subject, why not do your own research?
>
> Anyway, here are some starting points (be sure to read the comments...
> actual scientists are posting):

What don't you understand about "peer-reviewed" and "scientific journal"?
Somehow, your references don't seem to meet that criteria. Perhaps you,
and others, might want to read:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-models-reveal-ine

And for a survey of scientific opinion on the matter:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

However, I do realize I'm dealing here with your beliefs. Beliefs are
notoriously unwilling to change in the face of evidence, so I won't
pursue the matter further.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

> I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted
> loans
> were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies.

Larry, you haven't blocked this idiot yet?

You disappoint me.

Lew

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:53:34 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

> Well, considering that respected scientists are demolishing the
> arguments for AGW weekly, abuse is all they have to fall back on.

I'm always curious when people quote "respected scientists" as to whom
they're referring. Would you please give some names and lists of peer-
reviewed articles on the subject that they've published in the
appropriate scientific journals?

And if that information is available to you, an approximation of the
numbers of those articles compared to the number supporting man caused/
enhanced global warming would be helpful.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:51:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> ... the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The
Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually afford.

Once again Tim, show us the legal requirement.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:17:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts
> like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior
> by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not
> qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers
> they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government"
> would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted.
> This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their
> mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing
> they'd never have to eat the downside.

I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted loans
were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies. I don't
recall the exact numbers, but I posted them here once before.

The banks problems were that they bough up the securitized mortgages
believing the housing market would go up forever.

And then there's the speculators who simply walked away when the bubble
started leaking. Or haven't you read about all the renters that are
being evicted because their landlord bailed out?

Trying to blame the CRA just won't fly. It's been debunked too often.
Can you show me language in that or any other law that requires lending
to unqualified individuals.

And it wasn't the government that invented "liar loans" either.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:51:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> ... the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The
> Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually afford.
>
> Once again Tim, show us the legal requirement.
>

Who's "us"?

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:48:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> All of this is more-or-less true, but you're missing the point. The CRA
> created an *environment* or a *mentality* in which the bankers became
> comfortable with laying off risk to the public taxpayer

And I'll give you the point that the banks caved in, although I doubt it
was as extensive as you claim. Too many banks, including mine, rode out
the housing bubble with few or no problems. But again, banks, even under
pressure, didn't make most of the bad loans. Non-bank finance companies
did and they were under no government pressure.

The banks lost more money buying those securities than they did on bad
mortgages they made. And they also lost some money they loaned to the
non-bank mortgagors.

And we haven't even discussed the hedge funds that also bought the
securitized mortgages.

Mortgage brokers, finance companies, and hedge funds were all
unregulated. Could the government have prevented a lot of the crisis
with good regulation? Yes. Would they have crafted "good" regulations?
That's open to question :-).

I noted the news last night stated that legislators of both parties are
getting campaign contributions from executives of bailed out firms - the
dance goes on.


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:47:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:51:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> ... the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The
>> Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually
>> afford.
>>
>> Once again Tim, show us the legal requirement.
>>
>>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. Please restate.

You answered the question in your prior post. Pressure, not a legal
requirement.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

In article <[email protected]>, Three Lefts <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >[email protected] wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>>> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>>> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>>> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>>> >>>developed any industry yet.
>>> >>
>>> >> And *your* plan is.....?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>>
>>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>>
>>The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
>>suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
>>forgery and lies.
>>
>>The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
>>
>>And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
>>suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
>>for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
>>Minimum",
>>
>>And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
>>data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
>>air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
>>
>>My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
>>designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
>>India and other "developing nations".
>
>Hilarious. Here's living proof that there are two things that everyone
>has: an opinion and an asshole. And they both stink. Your opinion
>certainly qualifies.

Hint: personally abusing your opponent in a debate makes it obvious to all
observers that you are unable to win the debate on the merits of your
arguments.

Well Mark,
I am certainly glad that you cleared this up for me. Any time a member
of the conservative bloc finds the time and inclination to rise up on
his hind legs and clarify the world situation, it is indeed a red letter
day.

That said, this was an incredible collection of absolute drivel. The
only thing more incredible than your astounding ignorance is your
inability to rid yourself of it.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
> Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, given the fact that anything that happens is now "proof" of global
>> man-made climate change, what would be required to disprove the hypothesis?
>
> Considering the latest pronouncements are along the lines of "Yeah,
> well it may be on hold NOW, but just wait 30 or 50 years years and it's
> all going to happen AT ONCE" I think the hypothesis has been pretty
> much disproven.
>
> Of course, that won't stop world governments from using the issue as
> another excuse to steal money.

I might suggest that you Google (didn't somebody say that Google is your
friend?) on "climate changes". For some basic information look at the
EPA web pages and perhaps Wikipedia. This will get you past Rush at
least. Utilize some of the references given in these sites to pursue
specific areas of your interest. A LOT of scholarship is available to
bring you up to speed on the various forces involved in climatic changes.

mahalo,
jo4hn

[email protected] wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:57:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>>>>>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>>>>>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>>>>>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>>>>>>developed any industry yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> And *your* plan is.....?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>>
>>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>>
>> Umm, yes. Lots of bombast, little, if any, real science.
>
> If you live within 20-30 feet of sea level and plan to live more than
> 40-50 years, I suggest you sell and move to higher ground.

I sure am not going to plan my life around the pseudo-science of the
global warming alarmists. Their science is so bad, that the label is
now "climate change" since their predictions of warming have kind of been
blown away by the nasty fact that global average temperatures have not
increased since 1998. So, now, if the temperature goes up -- the cause is
global man-made climate change, if the temperature goes down -- the cause
is global man-made climate change. More storms than usual? Global
man-made climate change. Less storms than usual? Global man-made climate
change.

So, given the fact that anything that happens is now "proof" of global
man-made climate change, what would be required to disprove the hypothesis?



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
> Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Lurfys Maw
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.
>> >
>> > That's okay. You still have an opportunity to learn something.
>>
>> Kind of funny how the solution to all these crises is increased
>> government
>> control, significantly higher taxes, and destruction of years of
>> technical progress.
>
> Not funny at all. We still haven't decided here in Canada to give a
> majority government to our conservative side, but the left is running
> scared.
>
> I feel for the US of A. The damage being done is going be deep and long
> lasting, but there do seem to be signs the Dems are already starting to
> eat themselves from within... They're going to hurt you bad in the next
> four years, though.


Roger that. All of the left's angst over the previous administration and
how "dictatorial" and "controlling" it was going to be was simply
projection of what they are *really*, no-kidding trying to do to the basic
foundation of the country and its market system.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

I guess maybe I should keep my political commentary to myself but this
sure was alot more traffic than I expected from a little joke about
carbon credits. It's been fun to watch but frankly if I jumped in to
tried and fight in this battle I'd be an unarmed man. Glad to see so
many articulate fellows of a like mind here. I though maybe I was out
on a limb all on my own.

On Mar 21, 6:47=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
>
>
>
>
>
> Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Lurfys Maw wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:57:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>[email protected] wrote:
>
> > >>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> > >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>>>[email protected] wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
> > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>
> > >>>>>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and ta=
x it.
> > >>>>>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground w=
hile
> > >>>>>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but als=
o
> > >>>>>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
> > >>>>>>developed any industry yet.
>
> > >>>>> And *your* plan is.....?
>
> > >>>> =A0Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "pr=
oblem"?
>
> > >>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>
> > >> =A0Umm, yes. =A0Lots of bombast, little, if any, real science.
>
> > > ...and your degree is in what? Did you even finish high school?
>
> > =A0 As I said, lots of bombast, little science. =A0I guess I should als=
o have
> > added "with a bunch of ad hominem thrown in". =A0
>
> > =A0 Just to assuage your petty little taunt: =A0Master of Science in El=
ectrical
> > Engineering. =A0I've spent a number of years doing modeling and simulat=
ion as
> > well as work analyzing and evaluating both models and system performanc=
e
> > for various systems. =A0I KNOW the difficulty, even when I have direct
> > control of a large number of a CONTROLLED test's parameters to obtain
> > results from very sophisticated models that accurately predict a system=
's
> > performance in statistically meaningful terms. =A0That is one reason I =
laugh
> > in derision at all of these so-called experts using their models to pre=
dict
> > catastrophic climate change resulting from predicted temperature change=
s at
> > single or decimal increments of degrees based upon data that includes s=
uch
> > silliness as using tree-ring data to assess temperature data thousands =
of
> > years ago and attempting to predict the behavior of a chaotic system wi=
th
> > so many variables and closed-loop control cycles such that model fideli=
ty
> > to that level of precision is ridiculous.
>
> Or, as my dad says: "Those idiots can't predict YESTERDAY properly."- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Mar 28, 5:17=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
=A0IOW, the very *regulation*
> =A0 =A0that required banks to set lending standards when qualifying
> =A0 =A0borrowers was *thwarted by the repulsive leftwing social justice
> =A0 =A0idiots in government.* =A0It was not a *lack* of regulation that
> =A0 =A0caused it. =A0It was the banks being *forced to ignore the regulat=
ion*
> =A0 =A0by their own government that caused the problem.

LOL.
Didn't the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act change the regulators required?

On Mar 27, 5:40=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
=A0
>
> =A0 The funny thing is, this is simple projection -- for the most part, t=
he
> left doesn't *think*, it *feels*. =A0Decisions are made with emotions. =
=A0

I think I feel the need to point out that by saying that, aren't you
projecting?

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> Oh, dear... Now I'll be accused of being a "denier" again.

No. Just another one of those self involved ignorant species of man that I
mentioned.

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>
> > No. Just another one of those self involved ignorant species of man that
I
> > mentioned.
>
> And back to the name-calling, instead of formulating an argument and
> presenting evidence.

You want evidence that man is a self involved ignorant species? YOU are the
evidence, proved and reproved. You in your arrogance have displayed it here
for all to see.

Was that calling you a name? Too bad. Live with it.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>> >>>
>> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>> >>>developed any industry yet.
>> >>
>> >> And *your* plan is.....?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>
>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>
>The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
>suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
>forgery and lies.
>
>The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
>
>And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
>suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
>for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
>Minimum",
>
>And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
>data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
>air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
>
>My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
>designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
>India and other "developing nations".

Wow. What's it like to live in a simplistic world where everything is
someone else's fault and all bad things are caused by some conspiracy?

Global warming is real and most of it is caused by human activity.
Just keep talking to your knuckle-dragging buddies and pass the
problem to your kids and grandkids. If you don't have kids, thank you.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lurfys Maw
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.
>
> That's okay. You still have an opportunity to learn something.

Kind of funny how the solution to all these crises is increased government
control, significantly higher taxes, and destruction of years of technical
progress.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lurfys Maw wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:57:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>>>>>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>>>>>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>>>>>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>>>>>>developed any industry yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> And *your* plan is.....?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>>
>>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>>
>> Umm, yes. Lots of bombast, little, if any, real science.
>
> ...and your degree is in what? Did you even finish high school?

As I said, lots of bombast, little science. I guess I should also have
added "with a bunch of ad hominem thrown in".

Just to assuage your petty little taunt: Master of Science in Electrical
Engineering. I've spent a number of years doing modeling and simulation as
well as work analyzing and evaluating both models and system performance
for various systems. I KNOW the difficulty, even when I have direct
control of a large number of a CONTROLLED test's parameters to obtain
results from very sophisticated models that accurately predict a system's
performance in statistically meaningful terms. That is one reason I laugh
in derision at all of these so-called experts using their models to predict
catastrophic climate change resulting from predicted temperature changes at
single or decimal increments of degrees based upon data that includes such
silliness as using tree-ring data to assess temperature data thousands of
years ago and attempting to predict the behavior of a chaotic system with
so many variables and closed-loop control cycles such that model fidelity
to that level of precision is ridiculous.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> ''' looked at how this nation has prospered because of economic
freedom ...

You really have the nerve to claim that given the current economic
crisis? And you say liberals are illogical?

Unregulated free markets work great when everybody involved has the
common good as a goal. That's about as likely as the communist dogma
that man could be perfected :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:26:04 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>>> I'm always curious when people quote "respected scientists" as to
>>> whom they're referring. Would you please give some names and lists
>>> of peer- reviewed articles on the subject that they've published in
>>> the appropriate scientific journals?
>>
>> I can certainly provide some links to relevant reporting on those
>> articles.
>>
>> But if you're interested in the subject, why not do your own
>> research?
>>
>> Anyway, here are some starting points (be sure to read the
>> comments... actual scientists are posting):
>
> What don't you understand about "peer-reviewed" and "scientific
> journal"? Somehow, your references don't seem to meet that criteria.
> Perhaps you, and others, might want to read:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-models-reveal-ine
>
> And for a survey of scientific opinion on the matter:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
>
> However, I do realize I'm dealing here with your beliefs. Beliefs are
> notoriously unwilling to change in the face of evidence, so I won't
> pursue the matter further.

Are you writing letters to your Congresscritters and organizing protests and
printing bumnper stickers and inventing an appropriate color for a ribbon
and all the rest that is necessary to actually get something done about it,
or are you restricting your activities to arguing on USENET?

Or do you think that raising utility rates through the roof is going to be a
solution?

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Upscale
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>> That information is not available to me. But I'm curious, why is the
>>> number of articles relevant? There are a lot more people who own $300
>>> direct drive table saws than $3000 cabinet saws. Does that mean they
>>> know more about woodworking and are better able to offer advice?
>> Depends. An ability to throw money at a something doesn't mean one is more
>> qualified to comment. I'd argue that many woodworkers building things are
>> more skilled at the craft because they have the ability to compensate for
>> deficiencies in their equipment.
>>
>> This is despite the argument that some who are willing to spend the money
>> for better equipment might be considered to be more dedicated to woodworking
>> and be more knowledgably skilled. It doesn't however, belie the fact that
>> after a point, the preponderance of evidence usually points to the correct
>> conclusion.
>
> Until somebody exposes the interpretation of the evidence as false. The
> earth is not flat. Bumblebees can fly. The human body can survive
> speeds in excess of 30 mph. The sun does not orbit the earth. There are
> more than four elements, and they are not earth, air, fire and water.
>
> Anthromorphic Global Warming has become an orthodoxy. That orthodoxy is
> being successfully challenged, and the orthodox can do nothing but
> scream "BLASPHEMER!" in response.
>
> 52 scientistist wrote the political document for the IPCC that has
> become the Koran of the AGW proponents. Today, more than 700 scientists
> are saying they disagree with its conclusions.
>
> The data the AGW proponents have used is being shown to be either
> severely suspect or deliberately misrepresented or falsified, and they
> are howling as a result.

As I said before, this is undoubtedly a waste of time since your beliefs
are strong. However, look at
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
for a decent summary of some of the topics that deniers embrace.

I think you DO know who Rush is.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:51:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> ... the government forcing retail mortgage banks to give Wanda The
> Welfare Queen a mortgage for a home she could in no way actually afford.
>
> Once again Tim, show us the legal requirement.
>

I'm not sure I understand the question. Please restate.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" wrote:
>
>> I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted
>> loans
>> were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies.
>
> Larry, you haven't blocked this idiot yet?
>
> You disappoint me.
>
> Lew
>
>


Poor Lew - in the absence of a coherent counterpoint, you go
for the personal attack. Truly the sign of the absence of any
real thought on your part.

Lew, if you will (privately) send me your snail mail, I shall send you
earplugs so as to never hear a dissenting opinion ever again.

I may sometimes be wrong, and occasionally abrasive, but I assure
you I am never an "idiot". Was it William F. Buckley who said
words to the effect that liberals love to hear all other points of
view until they discover there actually *are* other points of view ...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>
>> > No. Just another one of those self involved ignorant species of man that
>I
>> > mentioned.
>>
>> And back to the name-calling, instead of formulating an argument and
>> presenting evidence.
>
>You want evidence that man is a self involved ignorant species? YOU are the
>evidence, proved and reproved. You in your arrogance have displayed it here
>for all to see.

You might benefit from asking yourself why you seem unable to engage in
rational debate without personally abusing those who disagree with you.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
>>> Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, given the fact that anything that happens is now "proof" of global
>>>> man-made climate change, what would be required to disprove the hypothesis?
>>> Considering the latest pronouncements are along the lines of "Yeah,
>>> well it may be on hold NOW, but just wait 30 or 50 years years and it's
>>> all going to happen AT ONCE" I think the hypothesis has been pretty
>>> much disproven.
>>>
>>> Of course, that won't stop world governments from using the issue as
>>> another excuse to steal money.
>> I might suggest that you Google (didn't somebody say that Google is your
>> friend?) on "climate changes". For some basic information look at the
>> EPA web pages and perhaps Wikipedia. This will get you past Rush at
>> least. Utilize some of the references given in these sites to pursue
>> specific areas of your interest. A LOT of scholarship is available to
>> bring you up to speed on the various forces involved in climatic changes.
>
> You're believing that Wikipedia is a valid source for scientific
> reference on anything beyond basic geometry? Seriously?
>
> I actually drafted a longer reply with citations and web links to real
> research, but this is way off topic, and you wouldn't listen anyway.
>
> Oh, BTW... who's this "Rush" you refer to? I don't live in the US, so I
> may have an imperfect understanding of how fucked up your country is at
> this particular point in time, though from what I'm reading about your
> president (PBUH) and your congress, things seem pretty bad there, what
> with all the people in power getting cash from AIG while screaming
> about $165 out of $180,000. I'd add the zeros, but it seems like the
> American public doesn't understand the decimal system, and scaling.
>
> And, of course, the fact that Obamessiah and Dodd both got over
> $100,000 from AIG means nothing...
>
> How's THAT for hijacking a thread?
I have found that there are some posters here who will repeat
ideologically based statements as fact (Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer
who expects that his suppositions be believed as fact). I will
occasionally try to point out a couple of places where very basic
information can be obtained and where links to other sources are
offered. More than that is a waste of time as far as I am concerned.
However if you want to supply that information, you certainly have my
blessing. Be careful to avoid "junk science" as that will only prolong
the agony of ignorance.

There are some of us here who do understand <.1% and that much of that
money is going to people who are trying to fix the problem. As to
campaign contributions and other bribes, that is the way of life in this
country. There are many other ways of doing elections, one of which I
put forth in this forum a few months ago.

Bliss need not involve ignorance.

mahalo,
jo4hn

"Three Lefts" wrote:
>...everyone
> has: an opinion and an asshole. And they both stink.

And here I thought it was two things every asshole gets were
hemorrhoids & cowboy boots.

Live and learn.

Lew

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:17:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts
>> like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior
>> by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not
>> qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers
>> they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government"
>> would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted.
>> This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their
>> mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing
>> they'd never have to eat the downside.
>
> I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted loans
> were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies. I don't
> recall the exact numbers, but I posted them here once before.
>
> The banks problems were that they bough up the securitized mortgages
> believing the housing market would go up forever.
>
> And then there's the speculators who simply walked away when the bubble
> started leaking. Or haven't you read about all the renters that are
> being evicted because their landlord bailed out?
>
> Trying to blame the CRA just won't fly. It's been debunked too often.
> Can you show me language in that or any other law that requires lending
> to unqualified individuals.
>
> And it wasn't the government that invented "liar loans" either.
>

All of this is more-or-less true, but you're missing the point. The
CRA created an *environment* or a *mentality* in which the bankers
became comfortable with laying off risk to the public taxpayer while
keeping the upside for themselves. Brother Obama has confirmed that this
is, indeed, the case, by bailing their butts out of all the above.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:40:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> ''' looked at how this nation has prospered because of economic
> freedom ...
>
> You really have the nerve to claim that given the current economic
> crisis? And you say liberals are illogical?
>
> Unregulated free markets work great when everybody involved has the
> common good as a goal. That's about as likely as the communist dogma
> that man could be perfected :-).
>

You really have the nerve to say that the crisis we are currently in is
the result of a free, unregulated market? Yeah, liberals are definitely
illogical (and don't have any sense of history either).

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:57:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>>>>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>>>>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>>>>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>>>>>developed any industry yet.
>>>>
>>>> And *your* plan is.....?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>
>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>
> Umm, yes. Lots of bombast, little, if any, real science.

...and your degree is in what? Did you even finish high school?

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:26:04 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>>> I'm always curious when people quote "respected scientists" as to whom
>>> they're referring. Would you please give some names and lists of peer-
>>> reviewed articles on the subject that they've published in the
>>> appropriate scientific journals?
>>
>> I can certainly provide some links to relevant reporting on those
>> articles.
>>
>> But if you're interested in the subject, why not do your own research?
>>
>> Anyway, here are some starting points (be sure to read the comments...
>> actual scientists are posting):
>
>What don't you understand about "peer-reviewed" and "scientific journal"?
>Somehow, your references don't seem to meet that criteria. Perhaps you,
>and others, might want to read:
>
>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-models-reveal-ine

Pffft. Scientific American's pronounced left-wing bias has been well known for
at least a decade. They've had at least a slight leftward tilt for as long as
I can remember, but it really went out of control about five milliseconds
after John Rennie took over as editor. They're *not* a credible source about
any scientific issue that has political aspects.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>> >>>
>> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>> >>>developed any industry yet.
>> >>
>> >> And *your* plan is.....?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>
>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>
>The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
>suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
>forgery and lies.
>
>The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
>
>And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
>suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
>for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
>Minimum",
>
>And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
>data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
>air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
>
>My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
>designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
>India and other "developing nations".

Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:26:04 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>>> I'm always curious when people quote "respected scientists" as to whom
>>> they're referring. Would you please give some names and lists of peer-
>>> reviewed articles on the subject that they've published in the
>>> appropriate scientific journals?
>>
>> I can certainly provide some links to relevant reporting on those
>> articles.
>>
>> But if you're interested in the subject, why not do your own research?
>>
>> Anyway, here are some starting points (be sure to read the comments...
>> actual scientists are posting):
>
> What don't you understand about "peer-reviewed" and "scientific journal"?
> Somehow, your references don't seem to meet that criteria. Perhaps you,
> and others, might want to read:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-models-reveal-ine
>
> And for a survey of scientific opinion on the matter:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
>
> However, I do realize I'm dealing here with your beliefs. Beliefs are
> notoriously unwilling to change in the face of evidence, so I won't
> pursue the matter further.
>


Given the fact that global average temperature has been falling since
1998 -- a fact NOT predicted by AGW models, and that the AGW alarmists
have now postponed GW doom for 50 years, perhaps the problem of belief and
orthodoxy is not on the part of those who do not subscribe to the AGW
faith. (oops, now climate change since the warming part didn't work out)

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:57:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>>>>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>>>>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>>>>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>>>>>developed any industry yet.
>>>>
>>>> And *your* plan is.....?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>
>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>
> Umm, yes. Lots of bombast, little, if any, real science.

If you live within 20-30 feet of sea level and plan to live more than
40-50 years, I suggest you sell and move to higher ground.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:09:22 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:35:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I am not a Bush defender, I am a tax hater and a liberty lover.
>> >>>
>> >>>I think it really sucks that governments just pick a thing and tax it.
>> >>>This cap-and-trade crap will tax our industries into the ground while
>> >>>China and others not only keep freely trashing our planet but also
>> >>>sell credits from the regions of wasteland where they haven't
>> >>>developed any industry yet.
>> >>
>> >> And *your* plan is.....?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why does he need a plan to solve a non-existant, fabricated "problem"?
>>
>> You think global warming is a "non-existant, fabricated problem"?
>
>The earth is not warming, and hasn't been for years. The data is
>suspect. The "scientists" promoting AGW have been caught in data
>forgery and lies.
>
>The geological record shows that CO2 increase as a RESULT of warming.
>
>And the lack of the start of the expected sunspot cycle strongly
>suggests we may entering another "little ice age" where the earth cools
>for 50 - 75 years, as it did about 400 years ago. See "Maunder
>Minimum",
>
>And don't get me started ont he Vladivostok Staion Antarctic ice core
>data, or the bogus data from weather monitoring stations sitting under
>air conditioning exhaust fans or between runways in Reno, or...
>
>My conclusion: global warming is a non-existant, fabricated problem
>designed to hurt what we call "western democracies" in favor of China,
>India and other "developing nations".

Hilarious. Here's living proof that there are two things that everyone
has: an opinion and an asshole. And they both stink. Your opinion
certainly qualifies.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:17:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> The U.S. government - in the form of its political rectal warts
>> like Carter, Clinton, Frank, and Dodd - *distorted* market behavior
>> by insisting that banks lend to borrowers who absolutely could not
>> qualify under normal rules. They did this by promising the bankers
>> they could keep the upside of such lending, but that "the government"
>> would protect them from the downside when such borrowers defaulted.
>> This created a perverse incentive for the banks (and AIG as their
>> mortgage default insurance company) to take lots of risk knowing
>> they'd never have to eat the downside.
>
> I know you won't believe this, Tim, but the majority of defaulted loans
> were made by mortgage brokers thru non-bank finance companies. I don't
> recall the exact numbers, but I posted them here once before.
>
> The banks problems were that they bough up the securitized mortgages
> believing the housing market would go up forever.
>
> And then there's the speculators who simply walked away when the bubble
> started leaking. Or haven't you read about all the renters that are
> being evicted because their landlord bailed out?
>
> Trying to blame the CRA just won't fly. It's been debunked too often.
> Can you show me language in that or any other law that requires lending
> to unqualified individuals.

You really don't get it do you?

The CRA didn't have language in it that said, "you will loan to
unqualified people". Instead, it used language about "fair housing"
and "non-discriminatory lending practices". At that point, various groups
such as community activists (ever heard of ACORN?) and the Janet Reno
justice department began threatening civil and legal action against banks
that did not meet "fair lending criteria". Those criteria used various
things such as number of loans to various favored political classes as
evidence of discriminatory lending practices. This, coupled with
increasingly lowered qualification requirements promulgated by Fannie and
Freddie served as the catalyst for both the bubble and the creation of the
bundled securities. While lending institutions are not free of blame from
this, they are not the root cause of the problem.

<http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/real-estate-mortgage-loans/456805-1.html>

<http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?status=article&id=312766781716725&secid=1501>

<http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1998/0320_agcom.htm>

Sure seems like government coercion at work.

In the beginning, the banks simply determined that the best approach was
to roll over and take the losses (some of which were covered by taxpayers
anyway) rather than deal with an ACORN lawsuit for every loan turned down.

Unintended consequences suck.




>
> And it wasn't the government that invented "liar loans" either.
>

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:44:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Top Spin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:46:01 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
>>>Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <[email protected]>, Lurfys Maw
>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Stunning ignorance -- truly stunning.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's okay. You still have an opportunity to learn something.
>>>>
>>>> Kind of funny how the solution to all these crises is increased
>>>> government
>>>> control, significantly higher taxes, and destruction of years of
>>>> technical progress.
>>>
>>>Not funny at all. We still haven't decided here in Canada to give a
>>>majority government to our conservative side, but the left is running
>>>scared.
>>>
>>>I feel for the US of A. The damage being done is going be deep and long
>>>lasting, but there do seem to be signs the Dems are already starting to
>>>eat themselves from within... They're going to hurt you bad in the next
>>>four years, though.
>>
>> We could have elected Bernie Madoff and still been 1,000 times better
>> off than the damage done by Bush and Cheney. It's hilarious watching
>> conservatives defending Bush. Dittoheads.
>
> Please, if you are going to be insulting, at least have the intelligence
>not to mix your ad hominems. "Bushies" is the derogatory established for
>those defending Bush (or fascists, nazis, whatever the vogue of the day in
>your leftie circles at the time). "Dittoheads" only applies when you are
>denigrating those who listen to, or agree with Rush Limbaugh. Don't they
>teach you anything in your nutroots classes?

Yawn. Distinguishing between Bush and Limbaugh is like distinguishing
between morons and idiots. Not interesting.

bye-bye