John Rennie

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> On Mar 18, 4:25 pm, "John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Obviously you are wary of letting me examine these sources.
>
> It appears that you do not know how to google
> That is a pity.
>
>

So help me out - display a little bit of netiquette.

Peter B. P.

Invasion of the Crackpots <[email protected]> wrote:

> The DANISH? They invented the sex change operation (google Christine
> Jorgenson)

WP quote:

A media sensation was created on December 1, 1952 when the New York
Daily News carried a front-page story (under the headline "Ex-GI Becomes
Blonde Beauty") announcing that in Denmark Jorgensen had become the
recipient of the first "sex change". This is not true, however. The type
of surgery in question had actually been performed by pioneering German
doctors in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Danish artist Lili Elbe and
Dorchen, both patients of Dr Magnus Hirschfeld at the Institute of
sexual science in Berlin, were known recipients of such operations in
1930-31. What was different this time, was the added prescription of
artificial hormones. When Jorgensen returned to New York in February
1953, she became an instant celebrity.

> and legalized kiddie porn.

When would that be?

> They even appointing that
> fagmeister Bjorn Lomborg as a top government "scientist".

Compared to some of the lefty loons we had on top government posts
before him, he was a welcome change...

--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk

If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?

Jerry Kraus

On Mar 18, 6:38 am, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Make credence recognised that on 17 Mar 2007 17:13:14 -0700,
> [email protected] has scripted:
>
> >On Mar 16, 8:11 am, Deeply Filled Mortician
> ><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> >> Make credence recognised that on 15 Mar 2007 15:17:29 -0700, "Jerry
> >> Kraus" <[email protected]> has scripted:
>
> >> >Correct. Global Warming is an environmentalist myth/religion given
> >> >credibility by ambitious and unscrupulous scientists and politicians.
>
> >> Ummm... no, it's real. And please wipe your chin after talking shit.
>
> > It appears that the Deeply Shit Filled Mortician
> > is either brain dead or under the spell of
> > ambitious and unscrupulous scientists and
> > politicians, Gore brand, that is.
>
> I'm still waiting for any evidence that global warming isn't happening
> to counteract the large amount that says it is.
>
> You guys seem to think it can't be true if the president doesn't
> endorse it.
> --
> ---
> DFM -http://www.deepfriedmars.com
> ---
> --

You can't prove a negative. It's possible global warming is
happening. It's just not likely to be very important, from the
evidence being presented. That's the issue. Just another example of
scientists lying and exaggerating in order to attract money to their
laboratories. That's what professional scientists do. That's their
job.

Deeply Filled Mortician

Make credence recognised that on 20 Mar 2007 13:57:10 -0700, "Jerry
Kraus" <[email protected]> has scripted:

>On Mar 18, 6:38 am, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>> I'm still waiting for any evidence that global warming isn't happening
>> to counteract the large amount that says it is.
>>
>> You guys seem to think it can't be true if the president doesn't
>> endorse it.
>
>You can't prove a negative.

Consensus between scientists has been reached, and that was after many
seriously well-funded attempts at stopping it from happening.

Now, either come up with a solid argument, or let it go.

>It's possible global warming is
>happening. It's just not likely to be very important, from the
>evidence being presented. That's the issue. Just another example of
>scientists lying and exaggerating in order to attract money to their
>laboratories. That's what professional scientists do. That's their
>job.

Professional scientists DON'T lie or exaggerate, by definition.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Fred Bloggs

In article <[email protected]>,
deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu says...
> Make credence recognised that on 20 Mar 2007 13:57:10 -0700, "Jerry
> Kraus" <[email protected]> has scripted:
>
> >On Mar 18, 6:38 am, Deeply Filled Mortician
> ><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>
> >> I'm still waiting for any evidence that global warming isn't happening
> >> to counteract the large amount that says it is.
> >>
> >> You guys seem to think it can't be true if the president doesn't
> >> endorse it.
> >
> >You can't prove a negative.
>
> Consensus between scientists has been reached, and that was after many
> seriously well-funded attempts at stopping it from happening.
>
> Now, either come up with a solid argument, or let it go.
>
> >It's possible global warming is
> >happening. It's just not likely to be very important, from the
> >evidence being presented. That's the issue. Just another example of
> >scientists lying and exaggerating in order to attract money to their
> >laboratories. That's what professional scientists do. That's their
> >job.
>
> Professional scientists DON'T lie or exaggerate, by definition.
>
As it's more relevant to this topic, I'll repost something I posted
earlier.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...1-2703,00.html


Climate science was doctored

* Robert Lusetich, Los Angeles correspondent
* March 21, 2007

THE Bush administration diluted scientific evidence of global warming,
one of its former high-ranking officials has admitted.
Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil,
conceded during a congressional hearing yesterday that while he was
chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality he
watered down reports on the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the
planet's climate.

"My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his
administration," Mr Cooney told the house government reform committee.
He defended aligning supposedly independent scientific reports with the
White House political view on the environment by saying the changes
reflected a comprehensive 2001 National Research Council report on the
issue.

That report, while firmly stating the case that the earth was being
endangered by greenhouse gases, was unable to answer all questions on
the causes of climate change completely, leaving room for those who
believe environmentalists are overstating the case - the predominant
view within the Bush administration and its friends in the business
sector.

Documents released by Democrats yesterday revealed that in 2003 Bush
administration officials made at least 181 changes to a plan to deal
with climate change that were aimed at playing down the scientific
consensus on global warming.

There were another 113 changes that made less of the human causes of
climate change, and even changes made to herald potential benefits to
higher temperatures.

"These changes must be made," according to a note in Mr Cooney's
handwriting. "The language is mandatory."

The Environmental Protection Agency was so against Mr Cooney's
alterations - saying they were "poorly representing the science" - that
it chose to leave the entire section on climate control out of its 2003
State of the Environment report.

Committee chairman Henry Waxman said Mr Cooney's testimony was proof
that there was a "concerted White House effort to inject uncertainty
into the climate debate. It would be a serious abuse if senior White
House officials deliberately tried to defuse calls for action by
ensuring that the public heard a distorted message about the risks of
climate change," Mr Waxman said.

Evidence was also shown that the highest public relations priority for
Mr Cooney's former employer, the American Petroleum Institute, was to
create uncertainty about warming.

Another Democrat on the panel, John Yarmuth, called Mr Cooney a spin
doctor.

Earl Evleth

On 21/03/07 0:31, in article [email protected],
"Fred Bloggs" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Professional scientists DON'T lie or exaggerate, by definition.
>>
> As it's more relevant to this topic, I'll repost something I posted
> earlier.
>
>
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...1-2703,00.html
>
>
> Climate science was doctored


I posted the same item too.

But first, professional scientists occasionally do lie, and when caught
at it are clobbered by their colleagues.

As for exaggerating, that is part of the game. One's own work is always
important!

What the Bush administration did is, of course, set up a political
gate keeper in order to filter out that which was considered incompatible
with policy. This is a form of "political correctness".

Government scientists exist in a world between corporate and academic
scientists. The academic scientists have nearly complete academic freedom.
They are directed somewhat by funding sources. So it would be interesting
to know how government grant awards have been altered by the Bush
administration. I noticed recently that funding for environmentally
related space programs has been cut with the excuse that money is being
diverted to the bread and circus projects like going to the moon (again
and why?) or the costly and useless (scientifically) manned satellite
program.

Corporate scientist are fully under the thumb of corporate directors
so freedom of speech or freedom to chose what research one does it
out. Government scientists to have various missions to fulfill,

Academic scientists have the freedom to pick and choose. However
some are working on esoteric subjects like I did, of absolutely
no use to almost everybody and that even interesting. The pressures
to publish or perish produces zillions of pages of scientific
publications, most of which one has difficulty determining their
importance. Those who generate those publications naturally
exaggerate their importance.

So exaggeration is alive and well, fear you not.