[FutureSDguy]

“While I think FutureSDguy is right about the fact that people can close their web browser… I believe that calling out people to simply close their web browser when they want to belittle others for expressing polarizing views is worse than belittling others for expressing their views.”

While familiarity breeds contempt, anonymity breeds disrespect.

PerryChase, I think you meant to quote FormerSanDiegan.

BTW, partially with the help of this forum, I decided that San Diego simply is not competitive to Seattle in terms of affordability and my particular job market. I’ll probably be changing my alias. But in any case, thanks to all for the data.

[FutureSDguy]

While I think qcomer and zk are right about the polarity of this dicussion here and in US politics, I do think if they don’t like the discussion, then they can close their web browser. Belittling others for expressing their views is worse than whatever views they might have.

[FutureSDguy]

What I find frightening is that so many people want to seat an insecure liar in the Oval Office in 2008. (Sure, you could say that Bush lied, but then why the double standard?)

[FutureSDguy]

The typical liberal does NOT believe in freedom of expression (among with all kinds of other rights). They try to emotionally blackmail their opponents by raising such freedoms in public discourse (e.g. “playing a race card”, etc). But when you look under their skin (which is rather thin) you can see that it’s only so they can force their worldview or governement upon others.

Their name-calling and patronizing is a consequence of generations of being out of mainstream thought. Like little children, they have to throw tantrums to get attention.

[FutureSDguy]

Al Gore is God to liberals, ucodegen. Did you see how the audience spoke in tongues on Oscar night? They react the same way to criticism the Muslims react to Muhammad being dispicted in cartoons. They are very self-righteous and intolerant of other views. Hence the spittle.

[FutureSDguy]

pmretep: “I hope everyone has seen his move, “Inconvenient Truth.” I just recently experienced it and was disturbed by the presentation”

I was equally disturbed when I watched the movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” LOL

http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/

[FutureSDguy]

PerryChase makes a gosh darn excellent point: focus on the message not the messenger.

I distinguish between hypocracy and double-standards. Beneficial hypocracy can recognize a weakness of self but is still committed to general betterment. Double-standards recognizes a weakness of self and does nothing about it.

Analogy: “I think everyone should at drive the speed limit, but I still drive too fast” is better than “I think everyone else except me should drive at the speed limit.”

Gore is guilty of a double-standard, and in this case, it’s worse because the nature of his hypocracy is still beneficial. (i.e. the message is still good, but the messenger is a lazy liar.) (BTW, I mean “good” on the assumption that CO2 reduction is really needed.)

[FutureSDguy]

If all you need to do is take down a building to get the press to cover it, why bother with contacting the press beforehand? (Not that I REALLY have to debunk this–it’s quite amusing actually.)

[FutureSDguy]

“And in what way is it a scam? More CO2 and CH4 increases the temprerature, period. Physical fact. Not belief. That will continue to be true even as the Sun changes.”

So you think its a great to reduce the temperature on the order of .01 to .1 deg C for the cost of trillions of dollars when the natural variability of the earth’s climate over the period of 50-200 years is on the order of +/- 1 to 3 deg C?

[FutureSDguy]

If a climate scientist follows scientific protocol, calls out the assumptions in their predictive models (better yet, call out the possibility that their models may not correspond with real behavior), and do proper peer reviews including people who aren’t excluded based on their AGW views, then I will consider the work to be unbiased.

If people aren’t at least a little confused, then I say that they aren’t reading both sides of the issue. I’d rather be confused and keep turning stones than to place blind faith into whatever IPCC wants me to believe or take this “consensus” as gold.

And, don’t worry, I’ve also read material from reputable scientists also, those who look at the actual data and provide alternative explanations. I was not aware of the astrology history of that author–the material just looked interesting.

And if the Earth does indeed start to cool as a result of a downturn in solar activity, then I’d like to see a refund back to the tax-paying public in the form of $5 Billion dollars paid to IPCC to do scientific research that turned out to be a deliberate scam.

[FutureSDguy]

dup 2 (hung session)

[FutureSDguy]

dup 1 (hung session)

[FutureSDguy]

Perhaps, but someone violating DNC is going to bother other people also. It’s better for the DNC complaint site to gather stats.

[FutureSDguy]

With the company’s name, you have enough to file a complaint: https://www.donotcall.gov/Complain/ComplainCheck.aspx

Also, next time in case you haven’t done this, using *69 to retrieve the caller’s phone number. (Doesn’t always work, though.)

[FutureSDguy]

I’ve also learned something also. The alarmist position hinges more on character attacks than real discussion of the evidence (which is inconclusive anyway.) Many folks are confused by the science, and I think part of this confusion is intentional (it’s called a “snow job”). Even the less-scientifically inclined warmists give up when pressed to defend AGW–that’s when they revert to hurling insults, or simply saying “well, regardless, it can’t hurt to reduce our pollution anyway just in case” (a lot like saying “well, yeah, I can’t prove God exists, but it’s better to go ahead and believe in Him in case there really is a hell.”) But I tell you what–it’s REALLY difficult to find a unbiased discussion of the science, in layman’s terms, on the internet.

[Author]

Posts