Re: Is Nob Really Dr. Joseph Goebbels?


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artyguy04@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137383234.023578.193910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: <nyob...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:08:15 GMT
>
>>You don't like them because they arte against your agenda, which is more
>>government control.
>
> So that's my 'agenda'? LOL! You are a buffoon.
>
> Nothing would please me more than to have your position be correct. We
> wouldn't have to do anything. We could pump as much *** into the air
> as we wanted to, with no repurcussions.
>
> So let me ask you: let's assume your position: what if all the hundreds
> of scientists who think GW with a man-made component is going on are
> wrong? We reduce some emissions, get air slightly cleaner, and what?
> Let's assume your position is wrong, and we do nothing. We possibly go
> into runaway temperature increases, and life on earth (such as it is at
> that point) sucks. So are you being rational? I sure don't think so.
> Let's see what other fabrications you're concocting.
>
> You should read this article, which talks about your Messiah Lindzen:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.science/
>
> "[Lindzen] is taken seriously because he's capable of excellent
> science," Sommerville said. "[But] most of the scientific community
> thinks he's mistaken... People are given a fair hearing and then we
> move on..." "...When you go to your doctor, and she says you're due for
> a heart attack, you don't turn around and say medicine is imperfect
> even if she can't predict the date of your heart attack," Sommerville
> said. "You take it seriously. I think climate science is in that
> position now."
>
> Let's look at your Duke 'report' for fabrications. You quote this:
>
> "Durham, N.C. -- At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured
> during
> the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than
> factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by
>
> various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."
>
> But you fail to mention this, WHICH IS IN THE SAME REPORT:
>
> "However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the
> basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of
> carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases."
>
> And this:
>
> "This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases
> contribute to global warming, they stressed. "Those gases would still
> give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said."
>
> http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html
>
> Your article from reason ends thus:
>
> "So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional
> wisdom-or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty
> of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and
> the controversy. "
>
> This is EXACTLY what realclimate.com said about junkscience, by the
> way: taking an opinion piece and offering it as 'proof' that some
> scientific point is now made.
>
> http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml
>
> Let's look at the homepage of another site you mention as a source for
> your point, breakfornews.com
>
> "Wag, Wag, Wag. The tail wags the dog. It's all a movie, with players
> and a script. Deranged Dictator Bush. Outraged U.N. Al-Qaida savages
> who behead.
> And you, being played for a sucker. "News" is scripted. 9/11 was
> scripted. You live in a Wag the Dog movie directed by the G8 New Word
> Order."
>
> http://www.breakfornews.com/
>
> Do you seriously read (and believe) this crap? LOL!
>
>>>>>You have no morals. You are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do
>>>>>not
>>>>>understand how science
>>>>> works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.
>
>>>>Projection is an ugly thing.
>
>>> Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"
>
>>No, You accuse me of what you do.
>
> What do I do, other than show how you snip the quotes (never failing to
> disregard anything that might show that you're wrong) (see above), show
> how you quote conspiracy theory websites like breakfornews, quote other
> dubious sources like junkscience, quote sources funded primarily by
> conservative groups and industries that might have a vested interest as
> though they're not biased, and so on.
>
> Nob, you are without a doubt the most intellectually dishonest person
> that I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.
>
> You are either stupid, or you are being intentionally dishonest. Which
> one is it? Or is it both?
>
Right, and the New Yourk Times is your idea of intellectually honest, and
Teddy Kennedy is qualified to ask somebody about the morality.



.