Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - milt

Pages: [1] 2
It is well within bounds to say that "I think this war was/is a mistake.  I don't think we can win.  I think we should come home".    To say that "I hope we fail" --

Which means what to you, exactly?  What would our "failure" look like?

which is how it is heard when you say "I oppose our victory"-- is something else altogether.

Again, what is a US "victory" in this context?

The terms are so abstract that it's possible you and Rog are thinking of different scenarios when you use those terms.

But the real question is why do you guys want to make such a big deal out of some comment he made and have this huge f-ing debate about it?  Why is that so much more interesting to "the right" than sticking to the original subject?


I have two family members in harm's way in the GWOT. One on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, the other a member of a Marine rifle company engaged in combat operations as we speak.

And if it were up to me they'd be home right now.

What's your investment in our losing?

What's yours?

Your relatives can get injured or killed whether or not we "win" this war.  It's not like "losing" the war means all our soldiers are dead.  But this is obvious, and you're not stupid, so why am I even having to explain it?

In any case, I want them out of harm's way.  You're the one who seems to want to keep them there.

Who's over the line?

This is just supposed to be a political discussion, "friends at the end of the day," and all that.  But you guys insist on making it personal.  Every post is full of snide comments and cheap shots against "the left" and the conversation inevitably turns into an attempt to smear your opponents as Communists and/or traitors.  Anything but sticking to the subject.

I'll give this forum one more shot if you want to just forget all this and start fresh, but I've grown weary of all the bickering.


We are fighting a war for our very survival.  Maybe it will take the deaths of people you care about to wake you up to this. I can't appeal to your patriotism, being a good leftist, you have none, so I guess it'll come down to when you find some sort of personal stake in the war.

You just crossed the line.


Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« on: June 18, 2007, 05:55:57 PM »
Because the tax "intended" for the business gets passed on to the consumer, most seriously affecting those on the lower end of economic status.

I'm not buying it.  I could just as easily say that my income taxes are "passed on" to my employer in the sense that they have to pay me more than they would otherwise in order to cover that extra amount I have to pay the government.

Anyway, I'm not sure what this has to do with "The 2008 Presidential Race" anymore.   :-)  There's got to be a "taxes" thread or something we could move this to.


Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« on: June 18, 2007, 03:15:32 PM »
Which harms the poorer would-be consumer the left allegedly cares so much about.....

What does this have to do with whether or not a business can be taxed?


Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« on: June 18, 2007, 02:46:36 PM »
You can't tax a business, big or small. You can try, but all you do is pass on the tax to the consumer.

They can try passing it on to the consumer, but they won't sell as many units when they increase the price.


Politics & Religion / Re: Libertarian themes
« on: June 15, 2007, 11:27:23 AM »
C'mon, libertarian doesn't mean anarchist.  It means govt limited to certain functions (e.g. protection of property rights such as copyright in a DVD.)  Our Founding Fathers were libertarians.  In their essence, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were and are libertarian.

There's no mention of "intellectual property" in any of those documents and I don't think it was even recognized until the mid 1800s, so we probably shouldn't mix that one in there with libertarianism or the Founding Fathers.  However, we might note that the FFs did in fact recognize the right to own "human property."

But anyway, I specifically took issue with your use of the term "free market," when you didn't really mean it.  In a truly free market, Kellogg's would be able to sell Frosted Flakes "frosted" with crack and wouldn't have to tell you.  Do you like the current situation where corporations are required by law to list ingredients and nutritional information on food products?  Or is that just another example of "big government" butting into our lives and the labeling should be voluntary?  Should people be able to sell their organs?  What about child labor and workplace safety laws?  More needless government interference?

Yes, I do believe that the FFs were libertarian and I myself subscribe to mostly libertarian principles, believe it or not, but I don't trust corporations as much as you seem to.  You obviously agree on the need for some government regulation, I think we just disagree on the details.


Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues
« on: June 15, 2007, 09:36:07 AM »

In the late 60s-early 70s I thought I was a leftist.  Then in 1975 I went back to college and took my first economics course.  What a revelation!  What I discovered I had been all along was pro-freedom and that , , , drum roll please , , , I was a libertarian.  Free minds and free markets!!!

Oh come on, Marc!

How about I open a liquor store next to your house?  Or maybe I'll duplicate all the Dog Brothers DVDs and sell them myself.  Then we'll see how much you like free markets.

Or did you mean government "regulated markets?"


Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« on: June 15, 2007, 09:15:33 AM »
The US Constitution defines the role of government. Feeding, housing and providing healthcare aren't the job of gov't. Uncle Sam isn't your daddy and mommy.

Let them eat cake?


Politics & Religion / Re: Venezuela
« on: June 11, 2007, 08:28:53 AM »
It's a simple question. What's your problem with me asking it?

This particular thread is about Venezuela.


Politics & Religion / Re: Venezuela
« on: June 09, 2007, 08:19:17 PM »

Is there ANY leftist totalitarian you aren't willing to defend? Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro? Anyone?

Sticking to the merits of the arguments, I see.


Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« on: June 02, 2007, 12:02:41 PM »
Woof Milt:

In a very unprofitable period of my life,  :cry: I followed surfed the peak of the NAZ boom and crashed and burned along with it.  During this time I followed the Gilder Technology Report and related readings.  My impressions on this issue were formed during that time.  As can be seen from some of the threads on the SCH forum here, I retain an interest.



Fair enough, but I get the idea that the only ones interested in importing these extra workers are high tech investors and executives that want to cut labor costs.


Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« on: June 02, 2007, 10:58:02 AM »
Whatever the reason, our high tech sector desparately needs these people and our country desparately needs a strong high tech sector.

What is the evidence that our high tech sector desperately needs these people?


Fine. I retract my original statement.

I'll add that I THINK that it is a logical to believe the people on the above list believe supporting Israel is important for religious reasons due to the huge amount of time I've spent involved with fundamental Christians.

I'll also add that I can't prove my original statement with journalism right now.

I also THINK that the Christians in this country are as dangerous as Islamic people everyone is up in arms about. I think that we are prone to violence against them and will seek out logic to support our war against them because of the Christians in this country. I think that we are happy to find logical reasons to fight wars with Israel's enemies because of our dominant religion.

I think that a wave of thought that supports violence can sweep through our country like a brush fire, with or without provocation, and that while we aren't as vocal as they are because we have a fancy way of talking, our high position and our weapons means it takes less to do more.

Poor Muslims scream and ache for violence and the west suffers some train bombings and 9/11. America sneezes and destroys Iraq. We have more power so I believe we have a higher calling to compassion and logic but our leaders were chomping at the bit to get into Iraq. We will fight in more places before long, all of which are a threat to Israel and I think we have our religious people to thank for getting the ball rolling.

Iraq, Iran, Muslims in general may have made some mistakes with us, but I THINK that if you could take away everything evil they ever did to US, we would be hovering over them, just waiting for an excuse.

Well put!


Politics & Religion / Re: Environmental issues
« on: March 02, 2007, 08:37:46 AM »
Milt avers:

Only those that start with the premise that GW is BS will find the contrary evidence (from questionable sources) compelling.

Uhm, horse feces.

Hey, don't take my word for it.  Like I said, anyone can do the research themselves, check your data/sources and mine, and draw their own conclusions.  They can also look back in this thread and see the numerous times I've tried to draw you into a scientific discussion, and each time you come up with some lame excuse and disappear for a while.

So go ahead and call me all the names you want, it won't change the facts, but I'm done wasting my time debunking every article you post.


Politics & Religion / Re: Environmental issues
« on: February 28, 2007, 12:04:41 PM »
As for the merits of [Gore's] documentary, that has been discussed already.  Glad you agree his credentials are overblown.

I haven't seen the movie and don't need to.  Anyone wishing to do the global warming research on their own will come to the same conclusion when examining all the evidence (on all sides).  Only those that start with the premise that GW is BS will find the contrary evidence (from questionable sources) compelling.


Politics & Religion / Re: Politically (In)correct
« on: February 26, 2007, 12:06:28 PM »
Lastly, I reject the inflation of homosexuality to the same status as race.

Tell it to some gay teenager who's taunted and gets called "faggot" or worse every day at school.  If anything, it's religion (which is 100% choice, unlike race or sexual preference), that shouldn't be at the same status as race.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but these groups who "condemn" homosexuality are no better than the other bigots our country has dealt with in the past and history will judge them just as harshly.


Politics & Religion / Re: Politically (In)correct
« on: February 24, 2007, 07:04:24 AM »
Does this mean you support banning t-shirts supporting Hamas and Hezbollah because of their known anti-semitism?

I guess I'd have to see the particular shirt before I decide.

But why are you asking me this question, rather than asking buzwardo if he would back the rights of Hamas and Hezbollah to wear "politically incorrect" t-shirts?  I want to know if these supposed crusaders for free speech will stand up for campus anti-semites and other such groups or if they only support the gay bashers.


Politics & Religion / Re: College Speech Police, II
« on: February 23, 2007, 05:16:56 PM »
One of the PC campus’s worst excesses in suppressing unwanted speech is the drive by gays and their allies to banish or break Christian groups for their traditional beliefs on sexuality. Some 20 campuses have acted to de-recognize or de-fund religious groups that oppose homosexuality (as well as nonmarital sex), often accusing them of violating antidiscrimination rules—that is, refusing to let gays be members, or allowing them to belong but not serve as officers.

Free speech doesn't mean we have to give a platform to bigots.  How is any of this different from de-funding a campus KKK group, or ordering a student to remove an anti-semitic t-shirt?


Politics & Religion / Re: The War on Drugs
« on: February 16, 2007, 09:57:26 AM »
IMHO the WOD is a tremendous foolishness that is both counter-productive and counter to basic American values of live and let live. 

I'm with you 100% on this one, but I have some concerns.

I'm all for people being able to legally purchase whatever recreational drugs they want, but I want draconian restrictions on the producers.  Do you really want corporations devoting millions of dollars to huge marketing and advertising campaigns designed to convince everyone to buy marijuana, cocaine, MDMA, or whatever?  I'm not saying these drugs are any worse than cigarettes and booze (they aren't), but they obviously aren't for everybody.

Does it have to be all or nothing?  Either they're completely illegal or we have to allow heroin vending machines in every school or we'd be violating the drug companies' rights to free speech?  I say make it all legal, but allow zero advertising.


Politics & Religion / Re: Contraritans Three
« on: December 15, 2006, 10:54:27 AM »
Universities, with their culture of academic freedom, civil debate and the open exchange of ideas, should celebrate the mavericks, the dissenters, the iconoclasts and the naysayers.

BS.  Or is the author arguing that universities should host conferences such as the recent one in Iran that questions the Holocaust, give a voice to flat earthers, the KKK, etc. all under the banner of being tolerant of different ideas?

This past spring the little magnolia tree in Tim Patterson's front yard produced an abundance of flowers. Ottawa is well north of the typical range for magnolias, but if the winter is relatively mild, as it was this past year, the tree does well. A harsh winter and the little tree struggles.

With the advent of global warming, you'd think Dr. Patterson's magnolia has a secure future. But Dr. Patterson, a geology professor at Carleton University, doesn't believe the Earth's climate is warming. The theory of manmade climate change due to greenhouse gases is incorrect and outdated, he says. "I don't get excited about what climate modelers are saying."

Okay, why is it incorrect?  This article doesn't say.

Dr. Patterson, whose specialty is paleoclimatology, is well aware that his views on climate change place him in a minority within the scientific community. But if he's feeling the heat, he doesn't show it. "As a scientist I can only go where the science takes me, and not where someone like David Suzuki wants me to go." When he does get criticized, it's rarely about the science, he says, but rather is an "ad hominem attack of some sort, like 'Patterson's in the pocket of Big Oil.' Well I wish!"

I'd like to criticize him on the science, but I have yet to see any of it mentioned in this article.

Dr. Patterson may take comfort in the fact he's not entirely alone in his views. A number of colleagues share his position, including Fred Michel at Carleton, and Jan Veizer and Ian Clark at the University of Ottawa, among others. "At these [two] institutions, climate researchers who agree with my perspective on climate change actually outnumber the alarmists," he says.

So they agree with Patterson, but what is their scientific argument based on?

What these scientists essentially agree on is that the Kyoto Protocol is pointless because carbon dioxide emissions are not driving climate change. The computer models are simply wrong and do not match actual observations.

That goes against all the research I've found.  It's too bad he doesn't actually mention which models or what was being observed.

Instead, Dr. Patterson points to solar variability -- changes in the sun's solar cycle -- as the likely culprit. The sun experiences an 11-year sunspot cycle as well as much longer cycles of solar activity, and these trends in the sun's output correlate well with temperature records dating back hundreds of years, he says.

I'd like to see the data.

Asked how the scientific community, the media and Al Gore could get the story so wrong, Dr. Patterson says it's mainly because the debate has become so politicized. Environmental activists have taken what should be rational scientific debates and turned them into occasions for "evangelizing and antagonizing," even though "they don't really know what they're talking about."

Total dodge.  He's asked about the "scientific community" and responds with some criticism of activists, who may or may not know what they're talking about.


Politics & Religion / Re: Environmental issues
« on: December 11, 2006, 10:42:42 AM »
Would both of you please be so kind as to provide at least a 1-4 sentence summary of each URL you cite? 

Thank you

I just added some descriptive quotes to the original post:


Politics & Religion / Re: Environmental issues
« on: December 08, 2006, 11:02:37 AM »
1. The data set is too small to create meaningful extrapolation.

Global mean surface temperature from the past 100 years:

"Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature."

"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year."

"Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Nio this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2C above the trend line by the strongest El Nio of the past century.  Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations"

"Borehole data are direct measurements of temperature from boreholes drilled into the Earth crust. Departures from the expected increase in temperature with depth (the geothermal gradient) can be interpreted in terms of changes in temperature at the surface in the past, which have slowly diffused downward, warming or cooling layers meters below the surface."

Borehole data for past 500 years:

"Underground temperature measurements were examined from a database of over 350 bore holes in eastern North America, Central Europe, Southern Africa and Australia. Using this unique approach, Pollack et al. found that the 20th century to be the warmest of the past five centuries, thus confirming the results of earlier multi-proxy studies."

"The geophysical methods used to generate bore hole temperature reconstructions do not permit annual or decade resolution, but only the century-scale trend in temperatures over the last several centuries. Nonetheless, this record, totally independent of data and methods used in other studies, shows the same thing: the Earth is warming dramatically."

Proxy data from tree rings, coral growth, stalagmites, etc. (2000 years):

"Beginning in the 1970's, paleoclimatologists began constructing a blueprint of how the Earth's temperature changed over the centuries before 1850 and the widespread use of thermometers. Out of this emerged a view of the past climate based on limited data from tree rings, historical documents, sediments and other proxy data sources. Today, many more paleoclimate records are available from around the world, providing a much improved view of past changes in the Earth's temperature."

"Over the last decade, there has been a major breakthrough in our understanding of global temperature change over the last 1000 years. Several different but important studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, revolutionized what we know about the 20th century in the context of past centuries. The research of the late 1990s formed the foundation for a progression of studies that followed, incorporating advances in statistical techniques and information from a broad range of proxy data types."

"Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time."

"The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:
    * Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
    * The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years."

Ice core data (400,000 years)

"Variations of temperature, methane, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations derived from air trapped within ice cores from Antarctica."

This graph shows the 100,000 year natural climate cycle and the correlation of carbon dioxide concentration with temperature.

Into finals around here, which precludes me from giving any response I pen the scrutiny I know it will be subject too. Perhaps at some point in the future I\u2019ll be inspired to partake of a major deconstructive spasm.

I understand.


Politics & Religion / Re: Environmental issues
« on: December 08, 2006, 08:22:48 AM »
Okay buzwardo, it's a clean slate as far as I'm concerned.  It's science only from here on out.


Politics & Religion / Re: Environmental issues
« on: December 08, 2006, 04:47:13 AM »

You were doing really well until the last section.  :-D

I removed it.


Politics & Religion / Re: CACAphony on Parade
« on: December 07, 2006, 04:08:33 PM »
Quote from: milt
Unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere over the last couple of hundred years due to human industrial activity.

As repeatedly mentioned in this thread, the tools for making measurements capable of supporting this sweeping statement are new on the scene, carbon dioxide measurements made over a geologically relevant period are hard to come by, while the geologic record clearly indicates climate change is the norm, rather than the exception.

Climate change at the current rate is not the norm.  Are you claiming that the borehole data, surface and satellite temperature measurements, ice core records, etc. are all BS?  I can post the data and graphs if you want.

Quote from: milt
Do you have any evidence to the contrary that doesn't come from Exxon researchers?

Quote from: buzwardo
And we are back to the ad hominem.

Well, all my data comes from peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals such as Nature, Science, etc.  All yours seems to come from industry backed front groups and a handful of scientists funded by them.  If someone's trying to convince me that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them for evidence that doesn't come from Philip Morris.


Politics & Religion / Re: Of Ice Sheets and Excitable Boys
« on: December 06, 2006, 11:06:27 AM »
I?d like to point out, however, that where science is concerned anyone involved in serious research is getting their bread buttered by someone with deep pockets, a fact that should be so obvious that I don?t understand the value of pointing it out.

I never said anything about deep pockets.  I pointed out that the funders of the global warming deniers that you cite have a financial interest in the results going a particular way.  It''s got nothing to do with research being expensive.

BTW, I was checking out more of and saw this:

Not infrequently, the question is asked as to why does not weigh into the so-called debate concerning evolution/creation (there'll probably be trouble because I didn't capitalise that). The answer is simple: alleged ID and Creation (there, better?) are matters of faith with zero requirement for science nor proof. In fact, "He said it. I believe it. That's an end to it." leaves no room for debate, informed, reasoned or otherwise - it's faith and perfectly sufficient for believers. The bottom line here is that, if you believe, that's fine, as it is if you don't believe - just don't confuse belief with science. And no, we won't be answering e-mail on this.

Pretty weak, coming from a so-called skeptic.

As everyone is getting their loaves slathered the relevant question is the one about the science: are reproducible results being obtained? If not, the science is bad, if so the science is good; science good or bad is not created by funding method, but by strict adherence, or lack thereof, to sound scientific method.

Unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere over the last couple of hundred years due to human industrial activity.  The warming / cooling in different parts of the atmosphere is consistent with what we would expect from an accumulation of greenhouse gases and these temperature changes are occurring at a much greater rate than any prior variations due to the planet's natural climate cycle.  This seems like pretty good evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary that doesn't come from Exxon researchers?   Which of these claims do you dispute?  I'm happy to discuss any scientific objections you have on any particular point.

Come on, let's talk about the science.  I'll look at some links to actual research papers, but please, no more links to various websites that claim to debunk the other side's arguments.  Let's just put them in our own words.


Politics & Religion / Re: Comprehensive "Global Warming" Rebuttal Info
« on: December 05, 2006, 05:02:41 PM »
A comprehensive survey rebutting anthropogenic warming fears can be found here:

These sources just aren't credible:

What are the specific claims made by the IPCC that you take issue with?  I suppose I could post a link to some website debunking the rebuttal, but that wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion.


Politics & Religion / Re: Environmental issues
« on: December 05, 2006, 01:53:42 PM »
Do you have a "peer reviewed set of data supporting your position"?  If so, have at it!


Politics & Religion / Re: Notes from the Underground
« on: November 20, 2006, 10:27:07 AM »
Perhaps I shouldn?t be scribbling as I?m having issues with a dental implant, which likely leaves me crankier than normal. Be that as it may, I wanted to respond to the argumentum ad hominem posted above.

So is there simply no such thing as a conflict of interest?  Are you claiming that the source of someone's research funding is completely unrelated to the conclusions they might draw?  Their data and methods couldn't possibly be biased in favor of the people/corporations supplying the cash?  I'm not saying they necessarily are, but to claim that viewing them with skepticism is some kind of ad hominem attack is ludicrous.

If the general consensus among environmental scientists was that there was no global warming except for a tiny minority of them who were all funded by the Sierra Club you wouldn't question their conclusions?  You'd claim "ad hominem attack" if anyone suggested that maybe they were skewing the results in favor of their financial supporters?


Martial Arts Topics / Re: Of Kyoto and Kumbaya
« on: August 11, 2006, 12:12:33 PM »
Quote from: buzwardo
You think all these (not very well paid) academics from various departments all over the world have just been distorting/exaggerating all the global warming evidence because they "want an excuse to tell everyone how to live?"

No I think true believers and evangelists like you

Evangelists like me?  What have I ever "evangelized" about?  I never claimed to be any sort of environmental crusader.


take data that would be considered paltry in any other smaller scale scientific endeavor, conflate it with your political ends, and then march around banging drums and shouting down anyone with a contrary view.  I think the academics you mention are subject to the same pressures and folly their forbearers who wrestled with heresies like the heliocentric universe or a non-flat earth were. I think some jump on the bandwagon, others stand mute, while a very few have the stones to stand up to the inquisition and contend with the McCarthyesque fallout that ensues.

That's technically possible, but I think a more likely explanation is that the countless peer-reviewed papers written on the subject are correct, while the tiny minority of global warming skeptics (all heavily funded by the energy industries) are being paid to have the right views, no different than expert witnesses.  Your argument would be easier to support if it were the global warming supporting researchers that were getting paid the big bucks, but since it's the other way around, you're reduced to coming up with this ludicrous "they just want to tell everyone what to do" scenario.


Martial Arts Topics / Re: Of Kyoto and Kumbaya
« on: August 11, 2006, 11:38:35 AM »
Quote from: buzwardo
You mention some "massive government intervention." What is it that you see happening?

Google ?Al Gore? and ?Kyoto,? then get back to me.

Okay, I'm back.  Now I want to hear what specific "massive government intervention" you, buzwardo, are personally concerned about.


Martial Arts Topics / Re: Professional Hyperventilation
« on: August 10, 2006, 06:34:25 PM »
Quote from: buzwardo
Did you demand this level of proof when the administration claimed that Saddam had WMDs?

Uhm, there have been WMDs found, though that?ll likely set off another round of quibbles,

I'm sure it would.  If it was so cut and dried, don't you think Bush and the Republicans would be making a big stink about it on a daily basis?

As opposed to the shills who want an excuse to tell everyone how to live and so make various unproven dire pronouncements that must be battled by massive government intervention?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  You think all these (not very well paid) academics from various departments all over the world have just been distorting/exaggerating all the global warming evidence because they "want an excuse to tell everyone how to live?"  Meanwhile, these massively funded industry groups are just trying to get the truth out?  Are you kidding me?  Talk about a conspiracy theory!

I don't believe you actually care about the science at all.  Are you afraid the government is going to come for your SUV or snowmobile or something?  Is that what this is about?  Any restrictions on your personal right to pollute are unacceptable and therefore any scienctific evidence that might indicate that such restrictions are necessary simply must wrong?

I'm sorry if I'm misreading you, but that's the impression I'm getting here.  I actually do agree with you on a lot of issues, but sometimes I think your libertarian streak gets out of hand.  You mention some "massive government intervention."  What is it that you see happening?


Martial Arts Topics / Re: Sky is Falling Data Sets
« on: August 10, 2006, 01:45:22 PM »
Quote from: buzwardo
There is too small a data set on the ozone hole and layer to have an informed opinion, not that it stops anyone. These cycles occur over tens of thousands of years, while the panic mongers cater to the next news cycle. Produce a table showing the size of the ozone hole over a geologically significant period and I might hazard an opinon.

Did you demand this level of proof when the administration claimed that Saddam had WMDs?

Is that your only quibble with the link?

Let's check some of the references, shall we?

In 2003, Baliunas and Soon published a paper which reviewed a number of previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. However, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of "Climate Research", the journal which published the paper, resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process which allowed the publication. The observations used by Baliunas and Soon in respect of MWP and LIA are often not temperature proxies but indications of wet or dry; Mann et al. argue that their failure to ensure that the proxies reflect temperature renders the assessment suspect. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.

Baliunas' extra-academic positions at several think tanks funded by energy industry organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute are often cited by her opponents as a source of bias on her part. Baliunas is a member of at least nine organizations which receive financial support from the petroleum industry.

Intermountain Rural Electric Association is heavily invested in power plants that burn coal, one of the chief sources of greenhouse gasses that scientists agree is quickly pushing earth's average temperature to dangerous levels.

Scientists and consumer advocates say the co-op is trying to confuse its clients about the virtually total scientific consensus on the causes of global warming.

ABC News has obtained a copy of a nine-page document that IREA general manager Stanley Lewandowski Jr. addressed to the more than 900 fellow members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

The document is a wide-ranging condemnation of carbon taxes and mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions that Lewandowski writes would threaten to "erode most, if not all, the benefits of coal-fired generation."

The letter also says that in February of this year, IREA contributed $100,000 to Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

Care to hazard an opinion of your own and then support it?

My opinion is that it's a bunch of crap, written by shills funded by the energy industry.  Why should we give any weight to their clearly biased research when they go against the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists?  Why would you?


Martial Arts Topics / Re: Global Warming Perspective
« on: August 10, 2006, 11:53:42 AM »
Quote from: buzwardo
A little long term perspective can be found here:

What are your thoughts on the hole in the ozone layer?  Is that part of the earth's natural cycle too?  Or do CFCs have something to do with it?


Politics & Religion / Re: Cutting Losses along the Warrior's Path
« on: August 07, 2006, 02:17:58 PM »
Quote from: buzwardo
??Islamo Fascist? is a mean thing to say,? might make for a fine mantra, but it?s little more than repetitious twaddle when used as a lone talking point in a larger debate.

Criticism of the use of the term

Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle East and South Asian history at the
University of Michigan, argues that the term is offensive and tantamount
to hate speech, because it is a desecration that is profoundly insulting
to Muslims.

    "It is hard to see the difference between the bigotry of
anti-Semitism as an evil and the bigotry that [Michael] Medved displays
toward Islam. It is more offensive than I can say for him to use the word
"Islamo-fascist." Islam is a sacred term to 1.3 billion people in the
world. It enshrines their highest ideals. To combine it with the word
"fascist" in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech. Are
there Muslims who are fascists? Sure. But there is no Islamic fascism,
since "Islam" has to do with the highest ideals of the religion. In the
same way, there have been lots of Christian fascists, but to speak of
Christo-Fascism is just offensive."

Others argue that grouping disparate ideologies into one single idea of
"Islamofascism" may lead to an oversimplification of the root causes of

    "The idea that there is some kind of autonomous "Islamofascism" that
can be crushed, or that the west may defend itself against the terrorists
who threaten it by cultivating that eagerness to kill militant Muslims
which Hitchens urges upon us, is a dangerous delusion. The symptoms that
have led some to apply the label of "Islamofascism" are not reasons to
forget root causes. They are reasons for us to examine even more
carefully what those root causes actually are." He adds "'Saddam, Arafat
and the Saudis hate the Jews and want to see them destroyed' . . . or so
says the right-wing writer Andrew Sullivan. And he has a point. Does the
western left really grasp the extent of anti-Semitism in the Middle East?
But does the right grasp the role of Europeans in creating such hatred?"
Richard Webster, author of A Brief History of Blasphemy: liberalism,
censorship and 'The Satanic Verses' writing in the New Statesman.

According to New York University professor Chris Matthew Sciabarra,
writing about the influence of Sayyid Qutb, "(w)hatever totalitarian
echoes one sees in the Qutbian vision, there are distinctions that
disqualify the usage of the word "Islamofascism" to describe it, or to
describe Islamic fundamentalism in general." See Neofascism and religion.

Others argue that movements characterized as "Islamofascist" are
dissimilar to fascist movements of the past. According to Roxanne Euben,
a professor of political science at Wellesley College,

    "Fascism is nationalistic and Islamicism is hostile to
nationalism. Fundamentalism is a transnational movement that is appealing
to believers of all nations and races across national boundaries. There
is no idea of racial purity as in Nazism. Islamicists have very little
idea of the state. It is a religious movement, while Fascism in Europe
was a secular movement. So if it's not what we really think of as
nationalism, and if it's not really like what we think of as Fascist, why
use these terms?"

Islamists, however, consider the community of Muslims, or Ummah, as a
nation. The use of the term "Islamofascist" by proponents of the War on
Terror has prompted some critics to argue that the term is a typical
example of wartime propaganda.

    "Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime
propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the
destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and
unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our
heads than in keeping their own." - Joseph Sobran, syndicated

Politics & Religion / Re: The Last Western Stooge
« on: August 07, 2006, 02:13:04 PM »
Quote from: buzwardo
What totally befuddles me is that if the global caliphate many Islamo Fascists advocate ever came to pass,

You bedwetting conservatives sure spend a disproportionate amount of time fretting about these ridiculous "Red Dawn" type takeover scenarios.

the first ones they'd hang from the soccer goal posts would be the western lunatic lefties currently carrying their water.

Of course they would!  I see that even you agree that the "Islamofascists" have much more in common with the American right wing than the left.


Martial Arts Topics / Our Environment
« on: July 28, 2006, 02:03:42 PM »;_ylt=AjMJXbBvlgksGSBr_VIiN2BrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 Utilities paying global warming skeptic

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science WriterThu Jul 27, 2:39 PM ET

Coal-burning utilities are passing the hat for one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.

Pat Michaels ? Virginia's state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute ? told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research. So last week, a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign to help him out, raising at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

The Intermountain Rural Electric Association of Sedalia, Colo., gave Michaels $100,000 and started the fund-raising drive, said Stanley Lewandowski, IREA's general manager. He said one company planned to give $50,000 and a third plans to give Michaels money next year.

"We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists," Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He also called on other electric cooperatives to launch a counterattack on "alarmist" scientists and specifically Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Michaels and Lewandowski are open about the money and see no problem with it. Some top scientists and environmental advocates call it a clear conflict of interest. Others view it as the type of lobbying that goes along with many divisive issues.

"These people are just spitting into the wind," said John Holdren, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The fact is that the drumbeat of science and people's perspectives are in line that the climate is changing."

Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington advocacy group, said: "This is a classic case of industry buying science to back up its anti-environmental agenda."

Donald Kennedy, an environmental scientist who is former president of Stanford University and current editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal Science, said skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers.

"I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."

Michaels is best known for his newspaper opinion columns and books, including "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media." However, he also writes research articles published in scientific journals.

In 1998, Michaels blasted NASA scientist James Hansen, accusing the godfather of global warming science of being way off on his key 1988 prediction of warming over the next 10 years. But Hansen and other scientists said Michaels misrepresented the facts by cherry-picking the worst (and least likely) of three possible outcomes Hansen presented to Congress. The temperature rise that Hansen said was most likely to happen back then was actually slightly lower than what has occurred.

Michaels has been quoted by major newspapers more than 150 times in the past two years, according to a Lexis-Nexis database search. He and Lewandowski told The Associated Press that their side of global warming isn't getting out and that the donations resulted from a speech Michaels gave to the Western Business Roundtable last fall. Michaels said the money will help pay his staff.

Holdren, a Harvard environmental science and technology professor, said skeptics such as Michaels "have had attention all out of proportion to the merits of their arguments."

"Last I heard, anybody can ask a scientific question," said Michaels, who holds a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "It is a very spirited discussion that requires technical response and expertise."

Other scientific fields, such as medicine, are more careful about potential conflicts of interests than the energy, environmental and chemical fields, where it doesn't raise much of an eyebrow, said Penn State University bioethicist Arthur Caplan.

Earlier this month, the Journal of the American Medical Association announced a crackdown on researchers who do not disclose drug company ties related to their research. Yet days later, the journal's editor said she had been misled because the authors of a new study had not revealed industry money they got that posed a conflict.

Three top climate scientists said they don't accept money from private groups. The same goes for the Web site, which has long criticized Michaels. "We don't get any money; we do this in our free time," said contributor Stefan Rahmstorf, an ocean physics scientist at Potsdam University in Germany.

Lewandowski, who said he believes global warming is real just not as big a problem as scientists claim, acknowledged this is a special interest issue. He said the bigger concern is his 130,000 customers, who want to keep rates low, so coal-dependent utilities need to prevent any taxes or programs that penalize fossil fuel use. He said his effort is more aimed at stopping carbon dioxide emission taxes and limits from Congress, something he believes won't happen during the Bush administration.

Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: July 08, 2006, 02:25:26 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog
It means that many infidel people are genuinely confused and concerned by what they are reading about Islam and its varying schools of thought and action and have probing questions that they wish to ask.

It also means that the more conscious amongst us are willing to entertain the possibility that the infidel side has made its own contributions to "the gathering storm" that threatens to engulf us all.

IMO, as long as you insist on keeping up this juvenile "infidel" BS, you're not going to be taken seriously.

Imagine if someone who claimed to be curious about Judaism constantly refered to themselves as "we goyim" or "the gentile side" in any discussion.  It's funny the first time, but after a while it gets irritating and comes off as patronizing, whether that's your intention or not.


Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: June 24, 2006, 04:25:51 PM »
Quote from: xtremekali

An infidel is a "non believer" one is not of the Islamic faith.  Just like a heathen is not of the Christian faith.

Myke Willis

I know what it means.  I'm curious about why Marc keeps using it in this discussion.  He's the only one doing it.


Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: June 24, 2006, 10:48:10 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog
That said, this question of looking the other way I think is a really important one for many of us infidels.

Why do you keep referring to yourself as an "infidel?"


Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: June 22, 2006, 01:36:46 PM »
Quote from: ppulatie
From Captain's Quarters and Ed Morrissey.

Hamas calling for the overthrow of the US and European countries by Islamists.  Again, where is the voice of reason in the Muslim world?  Only silence.......

Quote from: rogt

How exactly do you envision this happening?  It's not like there's
some official leader of the Muslim world or equivalent of the Pope who
speaks for all Muslims.  Are CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. going to find
all these anti-terrorism Muslims and give them 15 minutes during
prime-time to condemn terrorism to your satisfaction?

If the Muslim world doesn't see George W. Bush coming out to condemn
"collateral damage" that has resulted in thousands of innocent Iraqi
deaths, should they assume he fully approves of it?

Politics & Religion / Political Rants
« on: June 06, 2006, 11:06:55 AM »
Swift Boating the Planet

A brief segment in "An Inconvenient Truth" shows Senator Al Gore questioning James Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, during a 1989 hearing. But the movie doesn't give you much context, or tell you what happened to Dr. Hansen later.

And that's a story worth telling, for two reasons. It's a good illustration of the way interest groups can create the appearance of doubt even when the facts are clear and cloud the reputations of people who should be regarded as heroes. And it's a warning for Mr. Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue: you're going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules.

Dr. Hansen was one of the first climate scientists to say publicly that global warming was under way. In 1988, he made headlines with Senate testimony in which he declared that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." When he testified again the following year, officials in the first Bush administration altered his prepared statement to downplay the threat. Mr. Gore's movie shows the moment when the administration's tampering was revealed.

In 1988, Dr. Hansen was well out in front of his scientific colleagues, but over the years that followed he was vindicated by a growing body of evidence. By rights, Dr. Hansen should have been universally acclaimed for both his prescience and his courage.

But soon after Dr. Hansen's 1988 testimony, energy companies began a campaign to create doubt about global warming, in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence. And in the late 1990's, climate skeptics began a smear campaign against Dr. Hansen himself.

Leading the charge was Patrick Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia who has received substantial financial support from the energy industry. In Senate testimony, and then in numerous presentations, Dr. Michaels claimed that the actual pace of global warming was falling far short of Dr. Hansen's predictions. As evidence, he presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually taken place.

In fact, the chart Dr. Michaels showed was a fraud ? that is, it wasn't what Dr. Hansen actually predicted. The original paper showed a range of possibilities, and the actual rise in temperature has fallen squarely in the middle of that range. So how did Dr. Michaels make it seem as if Dr. Hansen's prediction was wildly off? Why, he erased all the lower curves, leaving only the curve that the original paper described as being "on the high side of reality."

The experts at, the go-to site for climate science, suggest that the smears against Dr. Hansen "might be viewed by some as a positive sign, indicative of just how intellectually bankrupt the contrarian movement has become." But I think they're misreading the situation. In fact, the smears have been around for a long time, and Dr. Hansen has been trying to correct the record for years. Yet the claim that Dr. Hansen vastly overpredicted global warming has remained in circulation, and has become a staple of climate change skeptics, from Michael Crichton to Robert Novak.

There's a concise way to describe what happened to Dr. Hansen: he was Swift-boated.

John Kerry, a genuine war hero, didn't realize that he could successfully be portrayed as a coward. And it seems to me that Dr. Hansen, whose predictions about global warming have proved remarkably accurate, didn't believe that he could successfully be portrayed as an unreliable exaggerator. His first response to Dr. Michaels, in January 1999, was astonishingly diffident. He pointed out that Dr. Michaels misrepresented his work, but rather than denouncing the fraud involved, he offered a rather plaintive appeal for better behavior.

Even now, Dr. Hansen seems reluctant to say the obvious. "Is this treading close to scientific fraud?" he recently asked about Dr. Michaels's smear. The answer is no: it isn't "treading close," it's fraud pure and simple.

Now, Dr. Hansen isn't running for office. But Mr. Gore might be, and even if he isn't, he hopes to promote global warming as a political issue. And if he wants to do that, he and those on his side will have to learn to call liars what they are.

Martial Arts Topics / question
« on: March 16, 2006, 02:42:18 PM »
In My Humble Opinion


Martial Arts Topics / Knife vs. Baseball Bat
« on: February 07, 2006, 08:58:27 AM »
Knife should just keep baiting bat.  Bat will not want to get too close and will probably swing out of range until he tires.   Once knife is confident that bat can no longer swing hard or quickly enough he can go to work.


Martial Arts Topics / Count Dante?
« on: November 11, 2005, 07:58:00 AM »

Martial Arts Topics / Weird and/or silly
« on: November 04, 2005, 10:19:22 AM »

Court: Workers' Comp Covers Hockey Player

By SONJA BARISIC, Associated Press WriterThu Nov 3, 8:04 PM ET

A former minor-league hockey player who injured his shoulder in a fight he claimed his coach told him to start is entitled to workers' compensation, a Virginia appeals court ruled.

The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld a Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission finding that "fighting is an integral part of the game of hockey" and that Ty A. Jones' injury arose in the course of his employment as an "enforcer."

Jones' former team, the Norfolk Admirals, had argued that the fight amounted to willful misconduct and that he was not entitled to workers' compensation.

L. Steven Emmert, a leading Virginia appellate attorney and hockey fan with no connection to the case, suggested the finding Tuesday was so obvious that it does not amount to much as a legal precedent.

"This court finds that fighting is an integral part of hockey," Emmert said. "Thirty million Canadians could have told you that." But he added: "Maybe clubs will be a little more careful about sending a goon ? an enforcer ? out to thunk somebody in the head."

Jones, a right-wing power forward with the Admirals, instigated a fight with an opposing player during a game in 2002. Jones said the coach told him to "go get" the player.

Jones got hurt, and an orthopedic surgeon later put six screws in his right shoulder. The athlete wore a sling for almost six months.

In 2004, Jones was awarded workers' compensation for the seven months he underwent rehabilitation. The ruling did not give a dollar amount.

Jones played for the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks in the 1998-99 season and, after leaving the Admirals, for the Florida Panthers in 2003-04. A Panthers spokesman did not immediately return a call inquiring about Jones' whereabouts.

Admirals spokesman Alan May declined to comment. The coach at the time of Jones' injury, Trent Yawney, now coaches the Blackhawks.

"No Blackhawk coach would ever intentionally send a player out to fight with someone," said Blackhawks spokesman Jim DeMaria.

Politics & Religion / Political Rants
« on: September 16, 2005, 10:28:25 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog

Whatever one's opinion on the abortion issue, the right to privacy does not supersede however the right to life; we may not murder someone in the privacy of our home for example.

A fetus is not "someone."


Politics & Religion / Re: Labeled for Life
« on: July 01, 2005, 11:18:52 AM »
Quote from: buzwardo
Dude, why are you willing to slap a life-long sex offender label on someone who merely grabbed an arm, particularly in light of the fact that the judge in the case said the law prevented him from exercising good sense and restraint?

I agree that the sex offender label probably isn't warranted, but something seems wrong with a guy that would get out of his car and grab someone like that.  I bet he wouldn't have done that to just anyone, but felt like he had the right to do it to a relatively powerless teenage girl.

If there is any sexual component here I say rip the fellows 'nads off and grate them on his teeth. But if this is merely some guy lecturing an erstwhile pedestrian

Again, I doubt you'd tolerate a stranger restraining you by the arm and lecturing you about walking properly for longer than a couple of seconds before lowering the boom, as it were.

that is now labeled for life due to an inflexible justice system then this is about as odious an exercise in government power as I've heard of late.

Really?  You think this is worse than the recent Supreme Court decision that now allows the government to seize your property
and give it to wealthy developers if they can generate more tax revenue from it than you can?


Politics & Religion / Re: Listed for Life
« on: July 01, 2005, 10:34:07 AM »
Quote from: buzwardo
Might be the wrong thread for this, but this instance of the nanny state running amok made my jaw drop.

Something doesn't smell right.  What kind of guy gets out of his car and grabs a 14-year-old girl to "lecture" her?  I have to swerve to avoid people and objects all the time, but it's never occurred to me to pull over and physically restrain someone to "chastise" them.

Why are you willing to cut this guy so much slack?  What do you think your reaction would be if someone swerved to avoid you, then got out of his car and grabbed you or your wife by the arm to deliver a lecture about watching where you're going?


Pages: [1] 2