global tepid

[P E Schoen]

"benj" wrote in message

Snip gigantic propaganda hurl.

Paul, as I recall it was your alarmist climate revisionist leader Dr.
Hansen who called before Congress for putting "deniers" to death.
Nothing more needs to be said to refute your bullshit.

Except you fail to provide a cite for this accusation. Here's what I found:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ek-nasa-james-hansen-deniers-climate-science/
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2008/06/james-hansen-wants-to-send-energy-ceo-deniers-to-jail/
http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2...proposal-the-peoples-climate-stewardship-act/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080208095230AAakklS
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...1_climate-change-climate-model-normal-climate

But considering the fact that deniers may be responsible for the deaths of
millions of people if they succeed at allowing Big Energy to continue its
attempts to bypass environmental safeguards for their profit-based agenda, a
death sentence may very well be appropriate. Even if the evidence for AGW
were not quite so overwhelming, and even if it were found to be wrong, the
present "business as usual" of irresponsible burning of a precious and
irreplaceable resource (crude oil), is simply WRONG. And the so-called
"clean coal" and natural gas from fracking are environmentally damaging. Why
are deniers such as yourself so adamant and vociferous in your attacks on
those who advocate renewable energy and the adoption of major efficiency
improvements? What do those cost you, compared to the probability of
environmental disasters of increasing frequency and unprecedented magnitude?
The mind boggles, and there is simply no possibility of rational discussion
with you and your ilk.

Paul

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:53:40 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

Snip gigantic propaganda hurl.




Paul, as I recall it was your alarmist climate revisionist leader Dr.
Hansen who called before Congress for putting "deniers" to death. Nothing
more needs to be said to refute your bullshit.

The hysterical AGW doomsayers...sigh. Panicked over something that'll
never happen, but in utter denial over real, calculable fiscal
realities such as U.S.' overspending (1.84x revenues so far this
year). Emotion over math.

Fossil-haters are likely to kill countless millions in Africa, India,
China, etc., when all's said and done, condemning billions more to
abject, miserable poverty.

Burning food to make Al Gore's ethanol already has killed countless
masses in poor countries all over, and likely affected (if not
effected) the Arab instabilities last year.

 

[P E Schoen]

wrote in message

The hysterical AGW doomsayers...sigh. Panicked over something
that'll never happen, but in utter denial over real, calculable fiscal
realities such as U.S.' overspending (1.84x revenues so far this
year). Emotion over math.

Those who recognize the reality of AGW, or even the mostly uncontested fact
of global warming from whatever cause, are hardly as hysterical as the
deniers, who tend to flail their arms wildly and scream obscenities and
tremble in fear of an imagined global conspiracy much larger and more
heinous than the very real and dangerous collusion of Big Energy in their
quest for profit with no regard for environmental damage and the human toll
that exacts.

Fossil-haters are likely to kill countless millions in Africa, India,
China, etc., when all's said and done, condemning billions more to
abject, miserable poverty.

How does the adoption of sustainable energy sources and greater efficiency
cause all these deaths and poverty? You are clearly delusional.

Burning food to make Al Gore's ethanol already has killed countless
masses in poor countries all over, and likely affected (if not
effected) the Arab instabilities last year.

Yes, ethanol from corn was not a wise choice, but there are better sources,
and your claim of millions killed is crazy talk. The ultimate answer will be
much improved energy efficiency and reduced per capita consumption by means
of cooperative living arrangements and reduction of the dependency on
individual transportation and unreasonably long commutes. If we eliminate
our presence in the Persian Gulf we will diminish funding of terrorists and
their targeting of US interests.

Paul

 

[[email protected]]

The hysterical AGW doomsayers...sigh. Panicked over something that'll
never happen, but in utter denial over real, calculable fiscal
realities such as U.S.' overspending (1.84x revenues so far this
year). Emotion over math.

There is no contradiction here. Both are leftist/statist power grab
strategies.

Fossil-haters are likely to kill countless millions in Africa, India,
China, etc., when all's said and done, condemning billions more to
abject, miserable poverty.

Even if the oceans don't rise, taxes will. Ever notice how more taxes
are the solution to *every* problem, real or perceived?

Burning food to make Al Gore's ethanol already has killed countless
masses in poor countries all over, and likely affected (if not
effected) the Arab instabilities last year.

The left only talks about caring.

 

[tm]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:53:40 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

Snip gigantic propaganda hurl.




Paul, as I recall it was your alarmist climate revisionist leader Dr.
Hansen who called before Congress for putting "deniers" to death. Nothing
more needs to be said to refute your bullshit.

The hysterical AGW doomsayers...sigh. Panicked over something that'll
never happen, but in utter denial over real, calculable fiscal
realities such as U.S.' overspending (1.84x revenues so far this
year). Emotion over math.

Fossil-haters are likely to kill countless millions in Africa, India,
China, etc., when all's said and done, condemning billions more to
abject, miserable poverty.

Burning food to make Al Gore's ethanol already has killed countless
masses in poor countries all over, and likely affected (if not
effected) the Arab instabilities last year.

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Isn't worldwide population reduction one of the lefts' ultimate goals?

You know, save the earth.

 

[[email protected]]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Isn't worldwide population reduction one of the lefts' ultimate goals?

You know, save the earth.

There aren't enough caves for all 4,000,000,000.

 

[[email protected]]

<

>

We must not allow a mine shaft gap!

Can't use them. They're not "natural".

 

[Wally W.]

Isn't worldwide population reduction one of the lefts' ultimate goals?

Yes, they even wrote this goal in stone. Just google "Georgia
Guidestones". Someone with a lot of money put up those stones.

Their goal is to reduce the human population to just half a billion
people, so 6.5 billion people are to be eliminated.

No, they don't want the smart ones - they want the subservient ones.

I doubt they have worked this out well.

Surely, they would want the best of health care and many toys, both
require substantial technology bases. Then there would be
entertainment of various types: movies, concerts, multiple TV
channels, literature. Transportation, building, agriculture, energy
production, resource acquistion (don't say "mining" to a greenie)
would all need workers. Not to mention protection from all the
wildlife the weasels admire from afar. Many specialists would be
unsustainable. The shining lights who are one in a billion now
wouldn't exist in their "paradise."

I question whether the world the monsters say they want could be
maintained with 500 million people.

 

[Wally W.]

The number of people who contribute to technology and science is a small.

There would be fewer without the infrastructure to allow the ones who
do contribute to technology and science.

If those who do contribute to technology and science had to spend more
time doing laundy, mowing the grass, and shoveling snow, they would
produce less technology and science. They would have less time and
less energy to do so.

As the productivity of tech/science sources diminished, the advances
and maintenance in the medical care and toys of the super rich would
diminish.

The level of technology in use would spiral downward due to lack of
sustainability.

The world created (or stolen) by those who worship at the altar of
sustainability would be unsustainable.

Consider that entire populations in the world contribute very little to
the well being of the super rich - say the entire population of Africa,
India, and California.

To the extent that it is true (and I am not fully conceding that it
is), it doesn't extend to 6.5 / 7 = 93% of the world population.

What about the shining light who was one in a billion and came from
Africa?

We can't know who in the world is expendable:

The Butterfly Effect - Part 3
Especially starting at time stamp 7:10

 

[benj]

To the extent that it is true (and I am not fully conceding that it is),
it doesn't extend to 6.5 / 7 = 93% of the world population.

Well, yes, but the invention of AIDS has done remarkable things toward
the goals in both Africa AND California! India seems to be dealing with
it's own positive feedback meltdown.

What about the shining light who was one in a billion and came from
Africa?

Why given the new powers, HE is the one who will decide who lives and
dies!

We can't know who in the world is expendable:

The Butterfly Effect - Part 3
Especially starting at time stamp 7:10

And this is the problem with Eugenics. The Malthusian theory is that if
you need to depopulate the earth, one might as well get rid of the
undesirables first. The only problem with this idea is that under such a
program Tesla, Edison, Steinmetz, Hawking and so many others would have
all been killed. Hitler, of course, after learning of American Eugenics
theories became a HUGE fan, setting up gas chambers complete with fake
showerheads etc, but logical thinking was never his strong suite. So he
kicked all the Jews out of the Reich and they all went to America where
as Rectal Swartz would say there was the Manhattan project with more Jews
per square meter than anywhere in the world assuring that even had he WON
the battle of the bulge, his wondrous Reich would have still ended up
toast.

Point being that trying to get rid of "undesirables" is just as likely to
get rid of your salvation, because you can't really tell just WHO will
eventually come up with something really important.

 

[Wally W.]

Point being that trying to get rid of "undesirables" is just as likely to
get rid of your salvation, because you can't really tell just WHO will
eventually come up with something really important.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:46&version=KJV
Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?

 

[PowderedToastMan]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:46&version=KJV
Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?

Come and see.

 

[George Orr]

The people who decided that they can well do away with 6.5 billion people
are those who attend Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, Trilateral commission
and other such meetings.

Can you change the present/future? (note the nym this was posted with)

 

[Wally W.]

Nor am I saying that whomever put up the Georgia Guidestones is a good
person - genocide of 93% of the human race is unspeakably evil.

I'm not even saying that their plan will work.

I'm playing devil's advocate and pointing out HOW they could make it
work. :-D

I don't think it *can* work.

The things that lead to scientific and technological
advancement are freedom from the mundane chores necessary for living, and
collaboration with intelligent folks of a similar mindset.

RIGHT NOW, our culture does not value those with intelligence. The
intelligent are derided as geeks. They're actually LOOKED DOWN UPON. The
intelligent once were heroes and had fans like Rock stars. No matter what
you think of Einstein, he was a rock star of his day, a hero to many
(which is what made him so damned destructive!) and was doing things like
dating Marilyn Monroe. Today? Not so much and only within their own
community.

So, change the culture, provide the intelligent a living, and place them
where they can work together - and you can finance all that by disposing
of the "worthless eaters". To put it in harsh terms, we spend a lot of
money and resources feeding people who, once fed, only produce more
mouths to feed.

Among those "more mouths to feed" is an occasional outlier.

And all those "more mouths to feed" are human beings with a birthright
to dignity.

Since they don't value science and technology,

Which is not the highest value in all contexts.

and they
certainly aren't producing universities for the intelligent to
collaborate or even removing the yoke of the mundane chores of living,

Many who don't "value science and technology" are "removing the yoke
of the mundane chores of living" from *someone* every day.

I
suspect they will get more out of concentrating on a few than are lost
from a few chance outstanding people arising from the billions.

That can't be known. History seems to suggest otherwise.

The top-level control you suggest is ultimately destructive.

Their "Utopia" would not be safe from revolution without it.

Most people don't engrave their brain farts on stone as a shrine.

 

[Mahipal]

I'm not going to address the history issues raised there, though I
disagree on several points.

Nor am I saying that whomever put up the Georgia Guidestones is a good
person - genocide of 93% of the human race is unspeakably evil.

I'm not even saying that their plan will work.

Thanks for the warning. What's that saying... Do onto others before
they do onto you? As if living wasn't fearful enough already.

I'm playing devil's advocate and pointing out HOW they could make it
work. :-D The things that lead to scientific and technological
advancement are freedom from the mundane chores necessary for living, and
collaboration with intelligent folks of a similar mindset.

RIGHT NOW, our culture does not value those with intelligence. The
intelligent are derided as geeks. They're actually LOOKED DOWN UPON. The
intelligent once were heroes and had fans like Rock stars. No matter what
you think of Einstein, he was a rock star of his day, a hero to many
(which is what made him so damned destructive!) and was doing things like
dating Marilyn Monroe. Today? Not so much and only within their own
community.

Marilyn Monroe sure did get around a lot, the slut, the blonde, I
mean. Was there anyone in her era not in her dress? O wait... she had
no time to need to wear one. All are born nude, she even exited stage
left that wa(y).

Who else besides Einstein ever got a Rock Star treatment? Some
questions, like this one, are rhetorical. Media History speaks for
itself.

So, change the culture, provide the intelligent a living, and place them
where they can work together - and you can finance all that by disposing
of the "worthless eaters". To put it in harsh terms, we spend a lot of
money and resources feeding people who, once fed, only produce more
mouths to feed. Since they don't value science and technology, and they
certainly aren't producing universities for the intelligent to
collaborate or even removing the yoke of the mundane chores of living, I
suspect they will get more out of concentrating on a few than are lost
from a few chance outstanding people arising from the billions.

Why "provide the intelligent a living" when the ones allegedly capable
of controlling the providing, really need and want, the adoring
intelligence challenged masses to daily tweet in their praises of
them. Volume of people serves their egos deeply in their otherwise
lonely existence.

Enjo(y)... Cheers!

 

[Mahipal]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 11:22:04 -0600, Marvin the Martian
[trim]

The very term Geek is derisive and derogatory;

Not here, not any more. My designer glasses (bought at an outlet
store) are Geek brand.

I like this: "Women have no use for engineers except to marry them."

Precisely why we engineers are resorting to building women.

and "Geek: the kids you beat up in high school and you work for now."

Explains why the unemployment rates are at an all time low the Earth
over.

Geeks are still not very "social" no matter how they've hijacked the
business and technology world to exact their revenge. To Serve Man is
to Social Media. Thanks Geeks! Hey, cool sunglasses? What augmented
reality glasses? Only projects images of yourself -- how predictable
-- I mean sweet.

Google  geek  and get up to date.

Don't forget to like and share everything on the geek turf.

Enjo(y)... Cheers!

 

[Mahipal]

[trim]
RIGHT NOW, our culture does not value those with intelligence. The
intelligent are derided as geeks. They're actually LOOKED DOWN UPON..
Not around here. Geeks are hot stuff.
The very term Geek is derisive and derogatory;
Not here, not any more. My designer glasses (bought at an outlet
store) are Geek brand.
I like this: "Women have no use for engineers except to marry them."

Precisely why we engineers are resorting to building women.

Explains why the unemployment rates are at an all time low the Earth
over.

Geeks are still not very "social" no matter how they've hijacked the
business and technology world to exact their revenge.

You obviously haven't been in The Monk's Kettle on a Friday night.

Are you really that cheap geek -- wait that's redundant -- that you
could not leave my short paragraph intact? Well, that you dissected it
already answers my question. Running short on bits inventory... I
presume.

I've not been in my new neighbor's house on any night either. So what?
That the geeks are social in The Monk's Kettle and are all the while
exacting further revenge still. Over beers at that. Nice. What did
they conspire Friday yesterday?

I too like to drink. WIll stop by The Monk's Kettle when next in their
town. Fairly certain, the geeks will be too preoccupied checking
themselves out in their narcissistic augmented reality glasses to even
notice my physical presence next to them. Their social texting virtual
projected self tailored world trumps daily actual reality. Perhaps
another bar will serve me better.

Enjo(y)... Cheers!

 

[P E Schoen]

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message

I'm not going to address the history issues raised there, though I
disagree on several points.

Nor am I saying that whomever put up the Georgia Guidestones is a good
person - genocide of 93% of the human race is unspeakably evil.

If you read the content of the inscriptions, it does not advocate genocide.
Such a population reduction could be achieved within one or two generations
merely by offering voluntary sterilization or an annual tax credit or bonus
for remaining childless. Perhaps such a condition should be mandatory for
anyone receiving public assistance. Thus only those who have the
intelligence, work ethics, and other skills required to contribute to
society, and raise a child properly, would find it financially possible to
have children.

The drastic cutbacks proposed by "righteous" conservatives to welfare and
health care is a crueler form of population control, and could be labeled
genocide.

I'm not even saying that their plan will work.

I'm playing devil's advocate and pointing out HOW they could make it
work. :-D The things that lead to scientific and technological
advancement are freedom from the mundane chores necessary for living,
and collaboration with intelligent folks of a similar mindset.

RIGHT NOW, our culture does not value those with intelligence. The
intelligent are derided as geeks. They're actually LOOKED DOWN UPON. The
intelligent once were heroes and had fans like Rock stars. No matter what
you think of Einstein, he was a rock star of his day, a hero to many
(which is what made him so damned destructive!) and was doing things like
dating Marilyn Monroe. Today? Not so much and only within their own
community.

There is an unhealthy attitude toward intelligence and achievement,
especially in the ghetto culture where gangs and violence and criminal
activity is glorified, and it extends somewhat into suburban culture through
the admiration of gangsta rap and video games and violent sports, that
glorify blood and gore and rebellion against established authority. But
there are also many who admire the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and
realize that science and technology can provide a means to a very
comfortable lifestyle.

So, change the culture, provide the intelligent a living, and place them
where they can work together - and you can finance all that by
disposing of the "worthless eaters". To put it in harsh terms, we
spend a lot of money and resources feeding people who, once fed,
only produce more mouths to feed. Since they don't value science
and technology, and they certainly aren't producing universities
for the intelligent to collaborate or even removing the yoke of the
mundane chores of living, I suspect they will get more out of
concentrating on a few than are lost from a few chance
outstanding people arising from the billions.

That is a very reasonable proposal. It also coincides with my belief that we
will need to adopt a system of intentional communities which may be formed
on the basis of some common interests. There should also be some diversity,
and it will be necessary to balance intellectual ability with some level of
athletics, physical fitness, and team sports, as well as appreciation for
nature and the roles we play in the perpetuation and advancement of our
species. We need to live in harmony with each other and the environment.

Paul
www.newkoinonia.com

 

[Mahipal]

49 pm, John Larkin
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 11:22:04 -0600, Marvin the Martian
[trim]
RIGHT NOW, our culture does not value those with intelligence. The
intelligent are derided as geeks. They're actually LOOKED DOWN UPON.
Not around here. Geeks are hot stuff.
The very term Geek is derisive and derogatory;
Not here, not any more. My designer glasses (bought at an outlet
store) are Geek brand.
I like this: "Women have no use for engineers except to marry them."
Precisely why we engineers are resorting to building women.
and "Geek: the kids you beat up in high school and you work for now.."
Explains why the unemployment rates are at an all time low the Earth
over.
Geeks are still not very "social" no matter how they've hijacked the
business and technology world to exact their revenge.
You obviously haven't been in The Monk's Kettle on a Friday night.

Are you really that cheap geek -- wait that's redundant -- that you
could not leave my short paragraph intact? Well, that you dissected it
already answers my question. Running short on bits inventory... I
presume.

I've not been in my new neighbor's house on any night either. So what?
That the geeks are social in The Monk's Kettle and are all the while
exacting further revenge still. Over beers at that. Nice.  What did
they conspire Friday yesterday?

I too like to drink. WIll stop by The Monk's Kettle when next in their
town. Fairly certain, the geeks will be too preoccupied checking
themselves out in their narcissistic augmented reality glasses to even
notice my physical presence next to them. Their social texting virtual
projected self tailored world trumps daily actual reality. Perhaps
another bar will serve me better.

Enjo(y)... Cheers!

The geek crowd is fun, funny, and largely concerned and altruistic.
There are some sociopaths in Silicon Valley, as there are on Wall
Street, but the tekkies that I meet are mostly very decent people.

The high unemployment rates prove altruism is dead.

I wish you the best of times with your friends John. Salute.

You did not know this, but I hate it when posters edit the content of
others' posts, not just mine, when responding. When you edit my
paragraphs, you change my meaning for those who may read downstream.
It's like you feign you are doing the downstreamers a favor. So nice
of you. In fact, such mindless or not editing, is a misrepresentation
and a disservice. By default, I assume posters who edit this way, are
being manipulative -- not just saving bits.

Now that I've explained myself... all the best and happy New Years!

Enjo(y)... Cheers!

 

[[email protected]]

The high unemployment rates prove altruism is dead.

The above makes absolutely NO sense.

<...>