<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Roger's comments are self explanatory. In short, he writes 1) 'Man undoubtedly has some effect [on Global Warming cycles], and 2) 'It only makes sense to curtail air pollution to the extent that is economically feasible'.<br><br>Can you tell me what your position is and what you'd recommend for fixing things?<br><br>-Scott<br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:50:34 -0700<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] heat wave<br>> From: philosopher.joe@gmail.com<br>> To: scooterd408@hotmail.com<br>> CC: lfalen@turbonet.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> <br>> If you think they are reasonable you explain them to me, Scott. You<br>> won't because you can't.<br>> <br>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> > This is all very entertaining which is what I've been looking for now that<br>> > Dale Courtney unfortunately wiped nearly all trace of his enormously<br>> > entertaining right-mind.us site from the internet. Roger's statements below<br>> > are reasonable to me whereas I'm not even sure what your position is at all<br>> > Joe. Can you summarize it for me along with your suggestions for a cure?<br>> ><br>> > -Scott<br>> ><br>> >> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:54:26 -0700<br>> >> From: philosopher.joe@gmail.com<br>> >> To: lfalen@turbonet.com<br>> >> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] heat wave<br>> >><br>> >> Roger: You don't even understand logic let alone science. In fact, you<br>> >> take some kind of pride in your level of ignorance, which prevents you<br>> >> from seeking a cure. Then you go ahead and talk to us about climate<br>> >> science!?! As if you understood the issues or even what you were<br>> >> saying!?!<br>> >><br>> >> I like Paul, I respect Paul. He says things on a public forum and I<br>> >> criticize him -- because other folks are listening and I feel a moral<br>> >> obligation to do so. He feels a need to post, I feel a need to<br>> >> criticize. That's what these venues are for. Better we get ugly than<br>> >> not talk at all, I think.<br>> >><br>> >> I like you too, Roger. And I'd be that much less of a friend for NOT<br>> >> pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about. Friends<br>> >> don't let friends talk junk.<br>> >><br>> >> Criticism is not abuse; pointing out that you have no basis for a<br>> >> comment like "everything in science must be verified by multiple<br>> >> reports from independent sources" since YOU DON'T READ SCIENCE<br>> >> JOURNALS and therefore are in no position to say whether or not there<br>> >> are independent sources is (in my mind) a public service.<br>> >><br>> >> On what basis do you hold your beliefs? You don't believe climate<br>> >> scientists but WHY? Give us one good reason. WHY are the overwhelming<br>> >> majority of climate scientists wrong? Why are the doomsday reports<br>> >> wrong? "Critique the doom sayers, with the The Sky is Falling<br>> >> scenario" is not an argument. It is a slogan. What backs that slogan<br>> >> up?<br>> >><br>> >> Personal beliefs are fine; keep them to yourself and I could care<br>> >> less. But when you post them here they become something else, and if I<br>> >> disagree with your comments I will criticize them. I'm interested in<br>> >> debate, and arguments, and reasons for belief when the belief is<br>> >> expressed in order to influence PUBLIC POLICY. So get used to it.<br>> >><br>> >> Best, Joe<br>> >><br>> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> wrote:<br>> >> > Tom<br>> >> > The information I had on the 1980 heat wave was on the local radio<br>> >> > station. It was only a degree or two from this one. That is very little<br>> >> > difference. Global Warming runs in cycles. Man undoubtedly has some effect.<br>> >> > The debate is in how much. It only makes sense to curtail air pollution to<br>> >> > the extent that is economically feasible. In the 60's you could routinely<br>> >> > smell the Pulp Mill at Lewiston Moscow. That has been cleaned up a lot. Do<br>> >> > what is feasible with out putting us back in the Stone Age. Also take a<br>> >> > reasonable approach, Critique the doom sayers, with the The Sky is Falling"<br>> >> > scenario. Work on the problem is a calm reasonable manner. Science in<br>> >> > general have lots of view points. The teutonic Plate theory was originally<br>> >> > ridiculed as was the the effect of glaciers on land formation. There has<br>> >> > been lots of conflicting reports on Vitamins and Herbs. The research by<br>> >> > Wakefield on the effect of vaccinations on Autism was bogus and caused<br>> >> > considerable harm. There is a problem b!<br>> >> ut!<br>> >> > work on<br>> >> > it with a health skepticism on individual report. Every thing in science<br>> >> > needs to be verified by multiple reports from independent sources.<br>> >> > Roger<br>> >> ><br>> >> > =======================================================<br>> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> > http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> > =======================================================<br>> >><br>> >> =======================================================<br>> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> =======================================================<br></div> </div></body>
</html>