[Vision2020] heat wave

[Joe Campbell]

Roger: You don't even understand logic let alone science. In fact, you
take some kind of pride in your level of ignorance, which prevents you
from seeking a cure. Then you go ahead and talk to us about climate
science!?! As if you understood the issues or even what you were
saying!?!

I like Paul, I respect Paul. He says things on a public forum and I
criticize him -- because other folks are listening and I feel a moral
obligation to do so. He feels a need to post, I feel a need to
criticize. That's what these venues are for. Better we get ugly than
not talk at all, I think.

I like you too, Roger. And I'd be that much less of a friend for NOT
pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about. Friends
don't let friends talk junk.

Criticism is not abuse; pointing out that you have no basis for a
comment like "everything in science must be verified by multiple
reports from independent sources" since YOU DON'T READ SCIENCE
JOURNALS and therefore are in no position to say whether or not there
are independent sources is (in my mind) a public service.

On what basis do you hold your beliefs? You don't believe climate
scientists but WHY? Give us one good reason. WHY are the overwhelming
majority of climate scientists wrong? Why are the doomsday reports
wrong? "Critique the doom sayers, with the The Sky is Falling
scenario" is not an argument. It is a slogan. What backs that slogan
up?

Personal beliefs are fine; keep them to yourself and I could care
less. But when you post them here they become something else, and if I
disagree with your comments I will criticize them. I'm interested in
debate, and arguments, and reasons for belief when the belief is
expressed in order to influence PUBLIC POLICY. So get used to it.

Best, Joe

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> Tom
> The information I had on the 1980 heat wave was on the local radio station. It was only a degree or two from this one. That is very little difference. Global Warming runs in cycles. Man undoubtedly has some effect. The debate is in how much. It only makes sense to curtail air pollution to the extent that is economically feasible. In the 60's you could routinely smell the Pulp Mill at Lewiston Moscow. That has been cleaned up a lot. Do what is feasible with out putting us back in the Stone Age. Also take a reasonable approach, Critique the doom sayers, with the The Sky is Falling" scenario. Work on the problem is a calm reasonable manner. Science in general have lots of view points. The teutonic Plate theory was originally ridiculed as was the the effect of glaciers on land formation. There has been lots of conflicting reports on Vitamins and Herbs. The research by Wakefield on the effect of vaccinations on Autism was bogus and caused considerable harm. There is a problem but!
>   work on
> it with a health skepticism on individual report. Every thing in science needs to be verified by multiple reports from independent sources.
> Roger
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================