< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
2 of 8
When do we put the lid on Westar?
Posted: 13 February 2014 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  536
Joined  2014-02-09

And just for the record, Larry, so you and others know me better, and so I don’t have to be compared with right wing wackos. My experiences usually show that those coming from the left side of the aisle immediately assume that every conservative is an extremist. Pure nonsense. Extremists populate the left as well. So for the record:

I applauded the day this country could get past stupid bigotry and didn’t make skin color an issue in an election. It was good to see the historic day when a black man finally occupied the White House. I did have reservations about the things Candidate Obama said and some of his associations. I grew to see how destructive his governance is…..contrary to everything he campaigned on.  I would have much preferred that we made it even more historic and had a brilliant woman as president, like Condaleeza Rice, or had the first black president be someone who would do a far superior job, like Dr. Ben Carson. That man has intellect AND common sense, and rejects destructive liberal notions of what is good for this country. I hope he seeks political office.
I never gave a twit where our president was born. I always accepted that he was born in Hawaii. I never held any belief in the crazy right wing stories you listed….never even heard them before now or sought them out. You must do it for amusement. I hope you realize that it in no way reflects the views of a true conservative. Facts and real issues matter to me, and the truth. The latter is another area I am at odds with this president….and please don’t tell me Bush lied about WMDs. THAT was a New York Times lie ascribed to Bob Woodward in his book on Bush. Woodward denied that was his contention. In fact, he said the opposite and demanded a retraction from the NYT that never came. Bush had plenty of other problems abhorrent to true conservatives, but lying about WMDs was not one of them. Lies repeated over and over by the lame stream media were soon accepted as truth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

Rick,
You seem to be predisposed to the notion that those who disagree with you are engaging in hyperbole or exaggeration.
Yet, you make statements like “there is no credible scientific evidence” of man-made global climate change…or call it global warming, if you like. The fact is…and you like facts…that 97.1% of SCIENTIFIC abstracts support the notion. They also indicate that global warming may be preceded by other extreme weather conditions…such as extreme cold. I won’t even begin to cite all the studies that refute your position. Anyone can simply google them up in two seconds. Serious climate change is a scientific fact…not an opinion as you suggest.
Anyway, welcome to our little forum.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  799
Joined  2012-10-10

Michael, go easy on Rick.  It’s nice to have someone else vist the board.  And, he says there is no scientific evidence of climate change.  His right wing friends in Topeka are over-riding the Kansas Board of Education and going to outlaw compentency testing for our school children.  Why?  Because the chosen testing that is being adopted across the Country uses the term “evolution”.  The proposed legislation coming out of Topeka will make it against the law for teachers to even mention the Theory of Evolution in a Kansas classroom.  As with climate change, we know for a fact there is no evidence of evolution of the specieis and we certainly wouldn’t want our children to be introduced to the same science that is accepted globally.  After all, we’re Kansas.

Rick blamed the Westar rate increases on the President.  I suppose the hundreds of thousands of Kansas tax dollars we will spend on defending suits to overturn this latest slap at education are the fault of the POTUS.  The hundreds of thousands Kansas taxpayers will shell out to defend suits against the recent LGBT discrimination legislation… the hundreds of thousands Kansas taxpayers will shell out to defend suits against the voter disenfranchisment laws… These far right wing laws being enacted by our Kansas legislature and having to be defended are all the fault of the POTUS.  I guess I wonder how many hours the POTUS works, in a day, to personally stike out at we poor Midwesterners.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 06:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  536
Joined  2014-02-09
Michael Hadley - 13 February 2014 06:09 PM

Rick,
You seem to be predisposed to the notion that those who disagree with you are engaging in hyperbole or exaggeration.
Yet, you make statements like “there is no credible scientific evidence” of man-made global climate change…or call it global warming, if you like. The fact is…and you like facts…that 97.1% of SCIENTIFIC abstracts support the notion. They also indicate that global warming may be preceded by other extreme weather conditions…such as extreme cold. I won’t even begin to cite all the studies that refute your position. Anyone can simply google them up in two seconds. Serious climate change is a scientific fact…not an opinion as you suggest.
Anyway, welcome to our little forum.

Michael,
Have you ever explored how the 97% number was derived? It is fallacious. Usually you hear it as 97% of climate scientists say climate change is real and mankind is the primary cause. It appears in several variations, usually revolving around the 97% range. You seem to have accepted at face value things you have read, without seeking what opposite viewpoints say. About 20 years ago, I was perfectly without opinion on the subject of manmade GW, and have made a study of it from both sides ever since. I have read thousands of articles on both sides and corresponded with a handful of scientists. I fully admit that you can google lots of alarmist articles. Ten thousand fallacious articles are still false.  But I have yet to have a CAGW proponent (I assume you know the acronym) show ONE SINGLE peer reviewed scientific paper accepted by the scientific community that shows that mankind is causing runaway dangerous GW.

To start, I would appreciate if you would Google Hal Lewis resignation letter from the APS and read it thoroughly. He is a wise and honest man, recently deceased, with outstanding credentials. He describes the fraud far better than I could. Then we can discuss Dr Richard Lindzen at MIT and Dr John Christy at UAH (one of my correspondents)

Second, so I can get an idea of your beliefs, can you tell me how much global warming we have had in the last 150 years, 50 years, and 15 years?

You say you won’t begin to cite “all the studies.” Cite one that I can examine that shows what I asked above, and maybe tell me what the major source is that shows dangerous warming caused by mankind is looming over the next century. Were those claims derived from scientific studies or something else? Do you know?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  536
Joined  2014-02-09

Larry, I have no “right wing friends” in Topeka. The only person I know in Topeka happens to be a liberal and a Democrat.

I am amazed at the power of propaganda on manmade GW, but if you could try having an open mind, you might learn something. Let’s just try to stick to facts.
For the record, even if 100% of scientists said mankind was causing dangerous warming, they could all be wrong. It wasn’t that long ago that a universal truth was that the earth was flat and the universe was geocentric rather than heliocentric. Consensus among scientists is NOT science. But more credible studies on what scientists really think reflects something akin to a 50-50 split….much like our country’s political division.

Larry, I would appreciate your answering the same things I asked Michael.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 06:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

Environmental Research Letters…mostly peer reviewed.
Let me ask you something. Why is it that your studies are all unbiased and the other studies are all biased? Is this an accident?
I think I already explained…as do most reputable studies…that “global warming” is a very gradual process and may be preceded by weather of the opposite nature such as the shit we have endured this past winter. I sure hope they are right. I will be happy when it is 100 degrees every day and night…sort of like Thailand or Singapore. I get nervous whenever the temperature drops below 80…:-)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 06:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  536
Joined  2014-02-09

And Larry, teaching creationism or whatever you were alluding to has absolutely nothing to do with the global warming nonsense. Can you focus and stay on topic without using ridicule as a debate technique?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  799
Joined  2012-10-10

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

This link is to NASA’s take on climate change.  The small box, about center right on the page, links to a list of many scientific studies.  Are all the listed organizations politically motivated to publicize incorrect consensus?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  799
Joined  2012-10-10

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
Towards the bottom of this linked page, there is a list of global scientific organizations who agree that climate change is an issue.  Are all the listed organizations politically motivated to publicize incorrect consensus?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  536
Joined  2014-02-09

Why are all of the “studies” reputable that you cite? That coin has two sides Michael. When you study something twenty years, even being a non-scientist lay person as I am, it’s funny how something emerges. It’s called facts and truth, and how it becomes easy to separate them from propaganda.
I am guessing you are relatively ignorant on this subject, and only know what you have read in the NYT or some liberal blog online, or saw in some NBC news article online. Why do you assume they are reputable? Accurate? Truth is truth and it has a way of emerging. Facts are facts and BS is BS…..if you took the time to study the subject, it might open your eyes.

I sense a fear to just answer my questions….they all are supportable with facts, not opinions. Tell me what you think of Hal Lewis. Can you answer the simple questions, please?

You threw out wild statements ....I hope you are ready to defend them. I am.

I hope you don’t epitomize the liberal stereotype….don’t confront you with pesky little things called facts. You know the story and all the facts in the world will not convince you.

Facts can be verified….empirical data. Or you can take the ostrich approach…..don’t confuse me with facts.

One of my beliefs is that liberals are afraid to get into a discussion of facts because they know they can’t support their position.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

Larry,
No point in playing this game, because opponents believe that all scientists are wrong, so quoting them has no effect on opinion…ditto for evolution. Rick’s argument that scientists believed that the earth was flat is fallacious. Science is far more advanced now than then, so it is not analogous.
Scientific sudies are irrelevant to people who hold these opinions which is why I will not waste my time citing studies that challenge their notions. Any fool with a twenty year old computer can find them in seconds and they all say the same thing…except for a few quacks, scientists agree that climate change is a fact.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  536
Joined  2014-02-09

Larry,
Your links don’t impress me at all….I have thoroughly researched the circumstances and facts surrounding those groups.
Off the top of your head, do you know who James Hansen is? Pauchari?

You are giving me propaganda, and you don’t even know why I say that.

Someone let me know when you have read Hal Lewis’ letter.

Has anyone read WUWT in depth for years and years, as I have? It’s only the number one climate science site in the world…..by a HUGE margin over ANY alarmist blog. Like I said, truth becomes obvious when you are given the evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  536
Joined  2014-02-09

Larry or Michael,
How much warming have we had (the globe) in the last 15 years?

How much did it warm since 1850?

Was that warming unusual, unprecedented, or anomalous?

These are easy questions if you are so sure you are right.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

Rick,
I am so glad that you stay above personal attacks. I will try not to consider you calling me ignorant a personal attack…and you don’t want to do that with me because I have a large vocabulary to describe people like you.
As for Hal Lewis…he was a nutcake. His views disregarded by most of the scientific community that you seem to distrust.
I will agree with you that there are nuts on both sides, but the predominance of evidence lies with the notion that global warming is real, and Hal Lewis is a minority dissenter.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  536
Joined  2014-02-09

Sorry Michael, but saying someone is ignorant of facts is NOT a personal attack. It’s pointing out a truth. Calling someone “stupid” or a “nutcake” as you did with Hal Lewis IS a personal attack See the difference? And I find it amusing that you call a highly respected scientist a “nutcake.” Why, because you find what he said troubling? Because what he says MIGHT be the truth?
I assume you would ID yourself as a liberal (correct me if I am wrong).

Why do liberals make personal attacks without ever discussing how truthful or factual the assertions were or are?

Can we assume liberals are afraid of the truth?

Profile
 
 
   
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
2 of 8
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.