TK was exactly right. OT

In article
,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press wrote:

There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?

Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
unpleasant might be called denial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

I know you know exactly what I was saying.
Suppose you take into account the statement to which I replied.

--
Michael Press

On Jun 25, 12:38*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyrese...legend_final_6....

[snip]

*Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a ****load
of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
it.

Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?

On Jun 25, 12:56*pm, Michael Press wrote:

I know you know exactly what I was saying.

Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
"... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
easily have been speaking about you.

On Jun 25, 4:04*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jun 25, 12:38*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyrese...legend_final_6....

[snip]

*Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a ****load
of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
it.

Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?

What is there to say that an administration in power hasn't joined the
fringe? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. FDR, LBJ, Bush...The scary
part of this is the poll numbers of Republicans who still blindly
support Bush. If your argument is that, that moves them all to the
extremist fringe that's a tough one to argue against too.
Are the people who support, enable, and advocate for the folks doing
extremist/fringe crap guilty of it too. IMO yes. When it stops being
the fringe is open to debate.
The good thing is that it looks like the pendulum is coming back the
other way again.
Bill C

On Jun 25, 1:27*pm, Bill C wrote:
On Jun 25, 4:04*pm, Robert Chung wrote:





On Jun 25, 12:38*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyrese...legend_final_6...

[snip]

*Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a ****load
of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
it.

Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?

What is there to say that an administration in power hasn't joined the
fringe? ... FDR,...

Whoa dog! Killing piggies and destroying crops is normal and
constitutional, of course. Siezing gold is a great thing! Only
whackos that don't completely agree on these creative ways to grow the
middle class are fringe elements of populations/societies. Why do you
hate FDR?

And the US was such a great place to stay in, Lincoln had to wage a
bloody destructive war to keep states in. Sorta like the Soviets not
allowing people to leave. Habeaus Corpus? Suspended. Free speech?
Violated. Riots against the draft (involuntary servitude)? Well
yeah. Weird that most (all?) the other western nations managed to
emancipate peacefully.

Why can't you hate only George Bush? George Bush does see far past
the constitution, as he stands on the shoulders of the giants before
him.

Of course, some people don't really care about that, because they are
drenched in positivism. They behave as if todays' power problem is
characteristically new, and "we" need to simply solve symptoms of
todays' problem, rather than any structural problems of power. Is the
Bush Administration an abject disgrace? Sure. It isn't the first,
and won't be the last. You can bet on that.

In article
,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:56*pm, Michael Press wrote:

I know you know exactly what I was saying.

Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
"... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
easily have been speaking about you.

You are getting further and further from what I said,
and what I replied to, and the meaning.

--
Michael Press

On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*"Paul G." wrote:



On Jun 23, 9:50*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:28*pm, wrote:

On Jun 23, 10:01*pm, Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 23, 8:24*pm, wrote:

A few things that have me perplexed:

1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
warming from the previous century
3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
cool
4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
levels or CO2 atmospheric levels

Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't looked at
the data:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp.../anonymous..co...

Very pretty charts. *I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
that it's not surface temps that matter. *Oh, wait... you're trotting
out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
data.

Hmmm.

You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
degree celsius warmer than a century ago.

Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.

Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
warming has continued since then.

Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
to solar activity.

No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.

Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.

There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?

--
Michael Press

Some people claim we never actually landed on the moon. Bush, the
worst president in history has a 28% approval rating, which I guess
means 28% of people polled will approve of damn near anything. So you
can find nut cases to doubt anything and everything. Your comment is
meaningless.

Oh yeah, and the "psycho" thing? You were played... like a
violin. ;-)
-Paul

On Jun 25, 12:09*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press wrote:

There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?

Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
unpleasant might be called denial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

I'll have to try that with those fat "estimated quarterly taxes"
envelopes the IRS sends me every year...
-Paul

On Jun 25, 3:55*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:56*pm, Michael Press wrote:

I know you know exactly what I was saying.

Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
"... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
easily have been speaking about you.

You are getting further and further from what I said,
and what I replied to, and the meaning.

--
Michael Press

You mean "the meaninglessness", right?
-Paul

In article ,
"Paul G." wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:09*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press wrote:

There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?

Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
unpleasant might be called denial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html

I'll have to try that with those fat "estimated quarterly taxes"
envelopes the IRS sends me every year...

I think you'll find that the government does not work on a "if it's good enough
for us, it's good enough for you" basis.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?