Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: methane warming of ice age

Expand Messages
  • Tom C
    ... Don t worry, Bob. You re not the first person to have done such a thing. I invented the internet! I really did! http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx ... Want to be
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:
      >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at CCD,
      >what I thought was an original idea,
      >the thread something like "Bob's new theory". 
      >It turns out that it didn't fly,
      >but had been thought about 10 years before.
       
      Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a thing.
       
      Al Gore lectures...
      "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
       
      :)
       


      Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
    • David E. Wojick
      Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed to be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was. Credit for inventing it is
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        [climatechangedebate] Re: methane warming of ice age
        Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed to be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was. Credit for inventing it is usually given to the guys who developed TCP/IP. But the system as a whole was developed by a lot of people, none of whom invented it. http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

        Please don't waste our time, believe it or not we are serious here. Mike is just our resident counter example.

        David W.

         
        --- In >climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:
        >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at CCD,
        >what I thought was an original idea,
        >the thread something like "Bob's new theory".
        >It turns out that it didn't fly,
        >but had been thought about 10 years before.
         
        Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a thing.
         
        "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
         
        :)
         
      • tom_c2k6
        Sorry, David. But going through your group s recent archives and finding the following post from Bob (bobmagi@), I thought the group was open to stupid
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Sorry, David. But going through your group's recent archives and
          finding the following post from Bob (bobmagi@), I thought the group
          was open to stupid political commentary as well as scientific debate.
          It almost seemed like Bob didn't believe the war on terrorism is for
          real. That we were 'wasting money' on a threat that didn't really
          exist. He also seemed to be under the terrible delusion that the
          government is spying on ordinary everyday Americans. i.e., other than
          those speaking to al qaeda or planning to launch attacks on us. Do
          you know if anyone had ever asked Bob not to post these sorts of dumb
          political remarks on this group? Forgive me, David, but it's very
          hard for me to believe you are a serious group when one of your main
          contributors is this delusional.

          Tom

          --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:

          Bridget,

          Yes it is frightening to see what dittoheads will believe, especially
          their willingness to spend billions per week of borrowed money on
          a 'war on terror' and agreeing to let the government snoop on their
          private lives, etc.

          Now about S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Development
          Policy Authorization Act of 2005

          http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517

          This has to do with cloud seeding doesn't it? Were 'Al Gore's team'
          protesting it? Why would they put their hands on their ears? Were
          you there?

          Bob Maginnis


          --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "David E. Wojick"
          <dwojick@...> wrote:

          Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed to
          be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was. Credit
          for inventing it is usually given to the guys who developed TCP/IP.
          But the system as a whole was developed by a lot of people, none of
          whom invented it. http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

          Please don't waste our time, believe it or not we are serious here.
          Mike is just our resident counter example.

          David W.


          --- In
          <mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com>climatechangedebate@yahoog
          roups.com,
          bobmagi@ wrote:
          >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at CCD,
          >what I thought was an original idea,
          >the thread something like "Bob's new theory".
          >It turns out that it didn't fly,
          >but had been thought about 10 years before.

          Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a
          thing.


          "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
          <http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx>http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx

          :)
        • amasetti@optonline.net
          Bob says/ writes some surprising things. I m still waiting for him to come up with Freon production data by year. He attempted to counter something I wrote
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob says/ writes some surprising things. I'm still waiting for him to come up with Freon production data by
            year. He attempted to counter something I wrote in my newsletter about when Freon had become widely
            used; Bob focused on a DuPont PR piece saying when it was invented and that became the obsessive focus of
            his entire argument. When I asked him to come up with actual data, he shilly-shallied. And then he got
            defensive. I hunted around and posted some actual annual data that backed up my earlier statement. He
            got even more defensive.

            Disirregardless.....

            - Al

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: tom_c2k6 <tom_c2k6@...>
            Date: Saturday, July 1, 2006 5:03 pm
            Subject: [climatechangedebate] Re: methane warming of ice age

            > Sorry, David. But going through your group's recent archives and
            > finding the following post from Bob (bobmagi@), I thought the group
            > was open to stupid political commentary as well as scientific
            > debate.
            > It almost seemed like Bob didn't believe the war on terrorism is
            > for
            > real. That we were 'wasting money' on a threat that didn't really
            > exist. He also seemed to be under the terrible delusion that the
            > government is spying on ordinary everyday Americans. i.e., other
            > than
            > those speaking to al qaeda or planning to launch attacks on us. Do
            > you know if anyone had ever asked Bob not to post these sorts of
            > dumb
            > political remarks on this group? Forgive me, David, but it's very
            > hard for me to believe you are a serious group when one of your
            > main
            > contributors is this delusional.
            >
            > Tom
            >
            > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:
            >
            > Bridget,
            >
            > Yes it is frightening to see what dittoheads will believe,
            > especially
            > their willingness to spend billions per week of borrowed money on
            > a 'war on terror' and agreeing to let the government snoop on their
            > private lives, etc.
            >
            > Now about S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Development
            > Policy Authorization Act of 2005
            >
            > http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517
            >
            > This has to do with cloud seeding doesn't it? Were 'Al Gore's
            > team'
            > protesting it? Why would they put their hands on their ears? Were
            > you there?
            >
            > Bob Maginnis
            >
            >
            > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "David E. Wojick"
            > <dwojick@...> wrote:
            >
            > Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed
            > to
            > be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was.
            > Credit
            > for inventing it is usually given to the guys who developed TCP/IP.
            > But the system as a whole was developed by a lot of people, none of
            > whom invented it. http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html
            >
            > Please don't waste our time, believe it or not we are serious here.
            > Mike is just our resident counter example.
            >
            > David W.
            >
            >
            > --- In
            > <mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com>climatechangedebate@yahoog
            > roups.com,
            > bobmagi@ wrote:
            > >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at CCD,
            > >what I thought was an original idea,
            > >the thread something like "Bob's new theory".
            > >It turns out that it didn't fly,
            > >but had been thought about 10 years before.
            >
            > Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a
            > thing.
            >
            >
            > "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
            > <http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx>http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx
            >
            > :)
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
            > ~-->
            > Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email
            > design.http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/jFYolB/TM
            > --------------------------------------------------------------------
            > ~->
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Eduardo Ferreyra
            Tom, Bob is in this list just in the same line as Mike is. He is a real denier, in the sense we are constantly presenting factual data and he ducking and
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 1, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Tom,
               
              Bob is in this list just in the same line as Mike is. He is a real denier, in the sense we are constantly presenting factual data and he ducking and swirling around, providing links to absurd and irrelevant sites in order to prove a theory that is unprovable.
               
              When defining the meaning of a word, the golden rule is not to use that word in the definition. In this list we are saying all or most of NASA, GISS, IPCC, Hadley Center, MET, etc, work and theories are flawed, and he keeps linking to the same sites as if that was a proof of something.
               
              Then, one of his strongest arguments is that "sceptics" are on BIg Oil payroll, as if warmer scientists were not paid by groups interested in promoting the AGW scam (Enron, EDF, NRDC, and their European cohorts). When he begins to lose a discussion he jumps into the political bandwagon to prove a technical and scientific matter is right.
               
              We get a lots of laughs with him, because the most important thing for him is to prove we "sceptics" (or "naysaers" -they love the word as they hate to be called "warmers") are wrong on any small piece of our arguments, and then make a logaritmic projaction upwards to prove his theory is the correct one. That kind of projection is used by warmer's to prove CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas. With no luck whatsoever until now.
               
              Cheers,
               
              Eduardo
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: tom_c2k6
              Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 6:03 PM
              Subject: [climatechangedebate] Re: methane warming of ice age

              Sorry, David. But going through your group's recent archives and
              finding the following post from Bob (bobmagi@), I thought the group
              was open to stupid political commentary as well as scientific debate.
              It almost seemed like Bob didn't believe the war on terrorism is for
              real. That we were 'wasting money' on a threat that didn't really
              exist. He also seemed to be under the terrible delusion that the
              government is spying on ordinary everyday Americans. i.e., other than
              those speaking to al qaeda or planning to launch attacks on us. Do
              you know if anyone had ever asked Bob not to post these sorts of dumb
              political remarks on this group? Forgive me, David, but it's very
              hard for me to believe you are a serious group when one of your main
              contributors is this delusional.

              Tom

              --- In climatechangedebate @yahoogroups. com, bobmagi@... wrote:

              Bridget,

              Yes it is frightening to see what dittoheads will believe, especially
              their willingness to spend billions per week of borrowed money on
              a 'war on terror' and agreeing to let the government snoop on their
              private lives, etc.

              Now about S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Development
              Policy Authorization Act of 2005

              http://www.govtrack .us/congress/ billtext. xpd?bill= s109-517

              This has to do with cloud seeding doesn't it? Were 'Al Gore's team'
              protesting it? Why would they put their hands on their ears? Were
              you there?

              Bob Maginnis

              --- In climatechangedebate @yahoogroups. com, "David E. Wojick"
              <dwojick@... > wrote:

              Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed to
              be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was. Credit
              for inventing it is usually given to the guys who developed TCP/IP.
              But the system as a whole was developed by a lot of people, none of
              whom invented it. http://www.walthowe .com/navnet/ history.html

              Please don't waste our time, believe it or not we are serious here.
              Mike is just our resident counter example.

              David W.

              --- In
              <mailto:climatechangedebate @yahoogroups. com>climatechangedebat e@yahoog
              roups.com,
              bobmagi@ wrote:
              >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at CCD,
              >what I thought was an original idea,
              >the thread something like "Bob's new theory".
              >It turns out that it didn't fly,
              >but had been thought about 10 years before.

              Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a
              thing.

              "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
              <http://tinyurl. com/rxzhx>http://tinyurl. com/rxzhx

              :)

            • bobmagi@att.net
              Tom, The problem with your post, other than repeating the falsehood that Gore claimed he invented internet, was that there was nothing in your link about
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Tom,

                The problem with your post, other than repeating the falsehood that Gore claimed he invented internet, was that there was nothing in your link about 'methane warming of ice age.' I wasted time reading 4 pages of political commentary trying to find it. Of course, the link just below where you clipped my post had plenty about the topic thread:

                http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2940045.stm

                'War on terror' is a stupid phrase, because terror is 'assymetrical war,' so 'war on terror' is 'war on war.' Better to say 'war on radical Islamists who are pissed at our unconditional support of Israel's apartheid against the Palestinians' or just call it what Bush did before his handlers corrected him, a 'crusade.'

                What is so unfortunate about the trillion dollars that we are spending on the Mideast military adventure is that we could have spent it on energy efficiency, met Kyoto goals, improved our security, and been in a better financial position to compete with China for the next few difficult decades rather than going further into debt and alienating most of the nations of the World. Here is something to worry about:
                http://economyincrisis.net/

                Al, why don't you post what I wrote a year and a half ago and let the list memebers decide if I 'shilly-shallied.'

                Bob Maginnis
                -------------- Original message ----------------------
                From: "tom_c2k6" <tom_c2k6@...>
                > Sorry, David. But going through your group's recent archives and
                > finding the following post from Bob (bobmagi@), I thought the group
                > was open to stupid political commentary as well as scientific debate.
                > It almost seemed like Bob didn't believe the war on terrorism is for
                > real. That we were 'wasting money' on a threat that didn't really
                > exist. He also seemed to be under the terrible delusion that the
                > government is spying on ordinary everyday Americans. i.e., other than
                > those speaking to al qaeda or planning to launch attacks on us. Do
                > you know if anyone had ever asked Bob not to post these sorts of dumb
                > political remarks on this group? Forgive me, David, but it's very
                > hard for me to believe you are a serious group when one of your main
                > contributors is this delusional.
                >
                > Tom
                >
                > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:
                >
                > Bridget,
                >
                > Yes it is frightening to see what dittoheads will believe, especially
                > their willingness to spend billions per week of borrowed money on
                > a 'war on terror' and agreeing to let the government snoop on their
                > private lives, etc.
                >
                > Now about S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Development
                > Policy Authorization Act of 2005
                >
                > http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517
                >
                > This has to do with cloud seeding doesn't it? Were 'Al Gore's team'
                > protesting it? Why would they put their hands on their ears? Were
                > you there?
                >
                > Bob Maginnis
                >
                >
                > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "David E. Wojick"
                > <dwojick@...> wrote:
                >
                > Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed to
                > be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was. Credit
                > for inventing it is usually given to the guys who developed TCP/IP.
                > But the system as a whole was developed by a lot of people, none of
                > whom invented it. http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html
                >
                > Please don't waste our time, believe it or not we are serious here.
                > Mike is just our resident counter example.
                >
                > David W.
                >
                >
                > --- In
                > <mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com>climatechangedebate@yahoog
                > roups.com,
                > bobmagi@ wrote:
                > >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at CCD,
                > >what I thought was an original idea,
                > >the thread something like "Bob's new theory".
                > >It turns out that it didn't fly,
                > >but had been thought about 10 years before.
                >
                > Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a
                > thing.
                >
                >
                > "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
                > <http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx>http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx
                >
                > :)
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • David E. Wojick
                Tom, one thing this debate teaches, if one is open to learn, is that everyone thinks that people who disagree with them over fundamental issues are
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  dillusional views
                  Tom, one thing this debate teaches, if one is open to learn, is that everyone thinks that people who disagree with them over fundamental issues are "dillusional" or "stupid." I regret to inform you that Bob's views are widely held.

                  You are not alone of course. The founding fathers failed to anticipate the two party system, that is why the Vice President has no job. They were followers of John Locke who taught that rational poeple who confront their differences must ultimately agree. He was wrong. Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.

                  I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research.

                  David

                  cf:  http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/Mathematics_Philosophy_Science/
                  >

                  Sorry, David. But going through your group's recent archives and
                  finding the following post from Bob (bobmagi@), I thought the group
                  was open to stupid political commentary as well as scientific debate.
                  It almost seemed like Bob didn't believe the war on terrorism is for
                  real. That we were 'wasting money' on a threat that didn't really
                  exist. He also seemed to be under the terrible delusion that the
                  government is spying on ordinary everyday Americans. i.e., other than
                  those speaking to al qaeda or planning to launch attacks on us. Do
                  you know if anyone had ever asked Bob not to post these sorts of dumb
                  political remarks on this group? Forgive me, David, but it's very
                  hard for me to believe you are a serious group when one of your main
                  contributors is this delusional.

                  Tom

                  --- In >climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:

                  Bridget,

                  Yes it is frightening to see what dittoheads will believe, especially
                  their willingness to spend billions per week of borrowed money on
                  a 'war on terror' and agreeing to let the government snoop on their
                  private lives, etc.

                  Now about S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Development
                  Policy Authorization Act of 2005

                  >http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517

                  This has to do with cloud seeding doesn't it? Were 'Al Gore's team'
                  protesting it? Why would they put their hands on their ears? Were
                  you there?

                  Bob Maginnis

                  --- In >climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "David E. Wojick"
                  <dwojick@...> wrote:

                  Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed to
                  be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was. Credit
                  for inventing it is usually given to the guys who developed TCP/IP.
                  But the system as a whole was developed by a lot of people, none of
                  whom invented it. >http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

                  Please don't waste our time, believe it or not we are serious here.
                  Mike is just our resident counter example.

                  David W.

                  --- In
                  <mailto: >climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com>climatechangedebate@yahoog
                  roups.com,
                  bobmagi@ wrote:
                  >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at
                  CCD,
                  >what I thought was an original idea,
                  >the thread something like "Bob's new theory".
                  >It turns out that it didn't fly,
                  >but had been thought about 10 years before.

                  Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a
                  thing.

                  "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
                  <http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx>http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx

                  :)

                • DAVE DARDINGER
                  Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views. I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.

                    I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research."
                     
                    That still doesn't explain the existence of Methane Mike in this debate.  (even if the first qualification were granted him for purposes of argument.) 
                     
                    Dave Dardinger
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 7:17 AM
                    Subject: [climatechangedebate] dillusional views

                    Tom, one thing this debate teaches, if one is open to learn, is that everyone thinks that people who disagree with them over fundamental issues are "dillusional" or "stupid." I regret to inform you that Bob's views are widely held.

                    You are not alone of course. The founding fathers failed to anticipate the two party system, that is why the Vice President has no job. They were followers of John Locke who taught that rational poeple who confront their differences must ultimately agree. He was wrong. Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.

                    I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research.

                    David

                    cf:  http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/Mathematics_Philosophy_Science/

                    Sorry, David. But going through your group's recent archives and
                    finding the following post from Bob (bobmagi@), I thought the group
                    was open to stupid political commentary as well as scientific debate.
                    It almost seemed like Bob didn't believe the war on terrorism is for
                    real. That we were 'wasting money' on a threat that didn't really
                    exist. He also seemed to be under the terrible delusion that the
                    government is spying on ordinary everyday Americans. i.e., other than
                    those speaking to al qaeda or planning to launch attacks on us. Do
                    you know if anyone had ever asked Bob not to post these sorts of dumb
                    political remarks on this group? Forgive me, David, but it's very
                    hard for me to believe you are a serious group when one of your main
                    contributors is this delusional.

                    Tom

                    --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:

                    Bridget,

                    Yes it is frightening to see what dittoheads will believe, especially
                    their willingness to spend billions per week of borrowed money on
                    a 'war on terror' and agreeing to let the government snoop on their
                    private lives, etc.

                    Now about S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Development
                    Policy Authorization Act of 2005

                    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517

                    This has to do with cloud seeding doesn't it? Were 'Al Gore's team'
                    protesting it? Why would they put their hands on their ears? Were
                    you there?

                    Bob Maginnis

                    --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "David E. Wojick"
                    <dwojick@...> wrote:

                    Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed to
                    be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was. Credit
                    for inventing it is usually given to the guys who developed TCP/IP.
                    But the system as a whole was developed by a lot of people, none of
                    whom invented it. http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

                    Please don't waste our time, believe it or not we are serious here.
                    Mike is just our resident counter example.

                    David W.

                    --- In
                    <mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com>climatechangedebate@yahoog
                    roups.com,
                    bobmagi@ wrote:
                    >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at CCD,
                    >what I thought was an original idea,
                    >the thread something like "Bob's new theory".
                    >It turns out that it didn't fly,
                    >but had been thought about 10 years before.

                    Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a
                    thing.

                    "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
                    <http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx>http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx

                    :)

                  • David E. Wojick
                    Mike is our number one off-the-wall theory person. I have looked at a number of Yahoo groups in other scientific areas and guess what, each typically has one
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mike is our number one off-the-wall theory person. I have looked at a number of Yahoo groups in other scientific areas and guess what, each typically has one or more off-the-wall theorists. Such people actually play an important role in science. Sometimes they keep alive fringe theories that turn out to be right. I am not saying Mike is right, just that he is not unusual in this context. He represents a very real component in the debate.

                      As a matter of fact, sometime after Mike started talking about methane hydrates they showed up in the respectable climate literature, where they remain. And if you look closely you will see that his wacky electric theories tie to some other people's work. He may be nuts but he is not irrational.

                      I just read that Gore has called us skeptics fringies. To him we look like Mike. Think about it.

                      David Wojick

                      "Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.

                      I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research."

                      That still doesn't explain the existence of Methane Mike in this debate. (even if the first qualification were granted him for purposes of argument.)

                      Dave Dardinger
                    • Richard deSousa
                      That s a lousy excuse, David. Mike is also verbally abusive and his ad hom attacks are obscene. I don t know of anyone else here who does that. Rich ...
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        That's a lousy excuse, David.  Mike is also verbally abusive and his ad hom attacks are obscene.  I don't know of anyone else here who does that.
                         
                        Rich
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 08:52
                        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] dillusional views

                        Mike is our number one off-the-wall theory person. I have looked at a number of Yahoo groups in other scientific areas and guess what, each typically has one or more off-the-wall theorists. Such people actually play an important role in science. Sometimes they keep alive fringe theories that turn out to be right. I am not saying Mike is right, just that he is not unusual in this context. He represents a very real component in the debate.

                        As a matter of fact, sometime after Mike started talking about methane hydrates they showed up in the respectable climate literature, where they remain. And if you look closely you will see that his wacky electric theories tie to some other people's work. He may be nuts but he is not irrational.

                        I just read that Gore has called us skeptics fringies. To him we look like Mike. Think about it.

                        David Wojick

                        "Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.

                        I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research."

                        That still doesn't explain the existence of Methane Mike in this debate. (even if the first qualification were granted him for purposes of argument.)

                        Dave Dardinger

                      • David E. Wojick
                        Agreed Rich, I am not apologizing for Mike, just responding to Dave s query. David That s a lousy excuse, David. Mike is also verbally abusive and his ad hom
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Agreed Rich, I am not apologizing for Mike, just responding to Dave's query.

                          David

                          That's a lousy excuse, David. Mike is also verbally abusive and his ad hom attacks are obscene. I don't know of anyone else here who does that.

                          Rich



                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: <mailto:dwojick@...>David E. Wojick
                          To: <mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com>climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 08:52
                          Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] dillusional views

                          Mike is our number one off-the-wall theory person. I have looked at a number of Yahoo groups in other scientific areas and guess what, each typically has one or more off-the-wall theorists. Such people actually play an important role in science. Sometimes they keep alive fringe theories that turn out to be right. I am not saying Mike is right, just that he is not unusual in this context. He represents a very real component in the debate.

                          As a matter of fact, sometime after Mike started talking about methane hydrates they showed up in the respectable climate literature, where they remain. And if you look closely you will see that his wacky electric theories tie to some other people's work. He may be nuts but he is not irrational.

                          I just read that Gore has called us skeptics fringies. To him we look like Mike. Think about it.

                          David Wojick

                          "Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.

                          I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research."

                          That still doesn't explain the existence of Methane Mike in this debate. (even if the first qualification were granted him for purposes of argument.)

                          Dave Dardinger
                        • P.M. Pollock
                          David: I fully share your regard for the off-the-wall mind. At first Mike stimulated a great deal of thought in my addled pate. Sad to say, as time went on
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David:

                            I fully share your regard for the "off-the-wall" mind. At first Mike
                            stimulated a great deal of thought in my addled pate. Sad to say, as
                            time went on his compulsion to sink into abusive ad hominem attacks
                            became ever more wearing. (If I recall, I even tried to post some
                            definitions of "fascist", to no avail, of course.) Ultimately it
                            became clear that the pain greatly outweighed the pleasure so I adopted
                            the fix which I recommend to all here who are fed up with his posts:
                            add him to your ISP's spamblocker. Now I simply receive a periodic
                            message listing blocked emails, which message usually engenders definite
                            mixed feelings: a smile of relief at the abuse I've avoided, but also a
                            sense of sadness that I'm missing exposure to Mike's extremely inventive
                            mind.

                            About "everyone thinks that people who disagree with them over
                            fundamental issues are "dillusional" or "stupid"', guess I'm just an old
                            Lockean in that I believe (and have experienced) that rational people of
                            good will can disagree about fundamentals. In my experience, most
                            people are indeed either stupid, delusional, or more often just too lazy
                            or negligent to do the work necessary to have a better grounding in
                            information. However there are exceptions, many of whom are or have
                            been on this forum, IMO. In my experience, when you find such a person
                            with whom to disagree and go through the considerable effort to drill
                            down as far as the two of you are able, you find there are ultimately
                            some pieces of ambiguous evidence which are interpreted differently by
                            the two of you, each interpretation being supportable. In my view email
                            conversations are an inadequate venue in that most of the subtleties of
                            face to face conversation are lost or falsely "present" in a character
                            which is usually misleading (by which I mean we tend interpret most of
                            the writings as though it were a spoken conversation on our home turf-
                            I'm sitting in /*my*/ chair in /*my*/ den at */my/* computer so my
                            unconscious assumption as I write is that I am speaking to my guest and
                            your replies are the obverse, a mindset much different and misleading
                            from that I assume for most written communication). In my view there
                            remain several "rational, good willed people who can disagree and remain
                            such" on the debate, although I would agree that one side is thinly
                            represented by such folk, especially since David C-H is no longer with us.

                            Back to inventive abusers. I've been sad to see some very valuable minds
                            leave this forum (Dick K, David C-H, Ralph M, Brian H, Bob R, .....).
                            At least some of them left stating it was because of the abuse. It's a
                            trade off. (Is there a way for Listmom to put a filter on all posts so
                            that "fascist" is displayed something like "/[gratuitous insult]/"?)

                            When are you off to Canada?

                            Regards,

                            Peter

                            David E. Wojick wrote:

                            >Mike is our number one off-the-wall theory person. I have looked at a number of Yahoo groups in other scientific areas and guess what, each typically has one or more off-the-wall theorists. Such people actually play an important role in science. Sometimes they keep alive fringe theories that turn out to be right. I am not saying Mike is right, just that he is not unusual in this context. He represents a very real component in the debate.
                            >
                            >As a matter of fact, sometime after Mike started talking about methane hydrates they showed up in the respectable climate literature, where they remain. And if you look closely you will see that his wacky electric theories tie to some other people's work. He may be nuts but he is not irrational.
                            >
                            >I just read that Gore has called us skeptics fringies. To him we look like Mike. Think about it.
                            >
                            >David Wojick
                            >
                            >"Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.
                            >
                            >I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research."
                            >
                            >That still doesn't explain the existence of Methane Mike in this debate. (even if the first qualification were granted him for purposes of argument.)
                            >
                            >Dave Dardinger
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • David E. Wojick
                            Peter, I too do not read Mike s posts. Thus I am amused at those who do complaining about them. It is like complaining that the car in front is too close.
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jul 2, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Re: [climatechangedebate] dillusional views
                              Peter,

                              I too do not read Mike's posts. Thus I am amused at those who do complaining about them. It is like complaining that the car in front is too close. Blocking individual words is not feasible since I don't own the system and Yahoo won't give me access to theirs.

                              Good people have indeed come and gone, but we always seem to have just enough. However, I have formulated a BBS version of Gresham's law -- bad arguments drive out the good. Abuse has, as Russell would say, all the advantages of theft over honest toil. Look at the comments trains on the yahoo news items, it is all the same people trading insults. Likewise for most places. We are lucky.

                              May not go to Canada this year. We have a new, young horse and may get another, to (begin to) replace our mid 20's trail mares (don't tell them). Need to stay to break the new ones in right.

                              Rave on,

                              David

                              David:

                              I fully share your regard for the "off-the-wall" mind. At first Mike
                              stimulated a great deal of thought in my addled pate. Sad to say, as
                              time went on his compulsion to sink into abusive ad hominem attacks
                              became ever more wearing. (If I recall, I even tried to post some
                              definitions of "fascist", to no avail, of course.) Ultimately it
                              became clear that the pain greatly outweighed the pleasure so I adopted
                              the fix which I recommend to all here who are fed up with his posts:
                              add him to your ISP's spamblocker. Now I simply receive a periodic
                              message listing blocked emails, which message usually engenders definite
                              mixed feelings: a smile of relief at the abuse I've avoided, but also a
                              sense of sadness that I'm missing exposure to Mike's extremely inventive
                              mind.

                              About "everyone thinks that people who disagree with them over
                              fundamental issues are "dillusional" or "stupid"', guess I'm just an old
                              Lockean in that I believe (and have experienced) that rational people of
                              good will can disagree about fundamentals. In my experience, most
                              people are indeed either stupid, delusional, or more often just too lazy
                              or negligent to do the work necessary to have a better grounding in
                              information. However there are exceptions, many of whom are or have
                              been on this forum, IMO. In my experience, when you find such a person
                              with whom to disagree and go through the considerable effort to drill
                              down as far as the two of you are able, you find there are ultimately
                              some pieces of ambiguous evidence which are interpreted differently by
                              the two of you, each interpretation being supportable. In my view email
                              conversations are an inadequate venue in that most of the subtleties of
                              face to face conversation are lost or falsely "present" in a character
                              which is usually misleading (by which I mean we tend interpret most of
                              the writings as though it were a spoken conversation on our home turf-
                              I'm sitting in /*my*/ chair in /*my*/ den at */my/* computer so my
                              unconscious assumption as I write is that I am speaking to my guest and
                              your replies are the obverse, a mindset much different and misleading
                              from that I assume for most written communication). In my view there
                              remain several "rational, good willed people who can disagree and remain
                              such" on the debate, although I would agree that one side is thinly
                              represented by such folk, especially since David C-H is no longer with us.

                              Back to inventive abusers. I've been sad to see some very valuable minds
                              leave this forum (Dick K, David C-H, Ralph M, Brian H, Bob R, .....).
                              At least some of them left stating it was because of the abuse. It's a
                              trade off. (Is there a way for Listmom to put a filter on all posts so
                              that "fascist" is displayed something like "/[gratuitous insult]/"?)

                              When are you off to Canada?

                              Regards,

                              Peter

                              David E. Wojick wrote:

                              >Mike is our number one off-the-wall theory person. I have looked
                              at a number of Yahoo groups in other scientific areas and guess what, each typically has one or more off-the-wall theorists. Such people actually play an important role in science. Sometimes they keep alive fringe theories that turn out to be right. I am not saying Mike is right, just that he is not unusual in this context. He represents a very real component in the debate.
                              >
                              >As a matter of fact, sometime after Mike started talking about
                              methane hydrates they showed up in the respectable climate literature, where they remain. And if you look closely you will see that his wacky electric theories tie to some other people's work. He may be nuts but he is not irrational.
                              >
                              >I just read that Gore has called us skeptics fringies. To him we
                              look like Mike. Think about it.
                              >
                              >David Wojick
                              >
                              >"Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence
                              and come to divergent views.
                              >
                              >I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant
                              message. In fact it is my field of research."
                              >
                              >That still doesn't explain the existence of Methane Mike in this
                              debate. (even if the first qualification were granted him for purposes of argument.)
                              >
                              >Dave Dardinger
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >

                            • Ned Ford
                              It doesn t either explain why people with some intellect continue to read and respond to him.  He s generating more debate than than the Al Gore solution to
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jul 3, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                It doesn't either explain why people with some intellect continue to read and respond to him.  He's generating more debate than than the Al Gore solution to the Florida problem.  What is this list coming to?

                                - Ned

                                DAVE DARDINGER wrote:
                                "Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.

                                I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research."
                                 
                                That still doesn't explain the existence of Methane Mike in this debate.  (even if the first qualification were granted him for purposes of argument.) 
                                 
                                Dave Dardinger
                                 
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 7:17 AM
                                Subject: [climatechangedebate] dillusional views

                                Tom, one thing this debate teaches, if one is open to learn, is that everyone thinks that people who disagree with them over fundamental issues are "dillusional" or "stupid." I regret to inform you that Bob's views are widely held.

                                You are not alone of course. The founding fathers failed to anticipate the two party system, that is why the Vice President has no job. They were followers of John Locke who taught that rational poeple who confront their differences must ultimately agree. He was wrong. Rational peope of good will can look at the same evidence and come to divergent views.

                                I run this debate primarily to demonstrate this very imporatant message. In fact it is my field of research.

                                David


                                Sorry, David. But going through your group's recent archives and
                                finding the following post from Bob (bobmagi@), I thought the group
                                was open to stupid political commentary as well as scientific debate.
                                It almost seemed like Bob didn't believe the war on terrorism is for
                                real. That we were 'wasting money' on a threat that didn't really
                                exist. He also seemed to be under the terrible delusion that the
                                government is spying on ordinary everyday Americans. i.e., other than
                                those speaking to al qaeda or planning to launch attacks on us. Do
                                you know if anyone had ever asked Bob not to post these sorts of dumb
                                political remarks on this group? Forgive me, David, but it's very
                                hard for me to believe you are a serious group when one of your main
                                contributors is this delusional.

                                Tom

                                --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:

                                Bridget,

                                Yes it is frightening to see what dittoheads will believe, especially
                                their willingness to spend billions per week of borrowed money on
                                a 'war on terror' and agreeing to let the government snoop on their
                                private lives, etc.

                                Now about S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Development
                                Policy Authorization Act of 2005

                                http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517

                                This has to do with cloud seeding doesn't it? Were 'Al Gore's team'
                                protesting it? Why would they put their hands on their ears? Were
                                you there?

                                Bob Maginnis

                                --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "David E. Wojick"
                                <dwojick@...> wrote:

                                Tom, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed to
                                be the chief patron of its development at DARPA, which he was. Credit
                                for inventing it is usually given to the guys who developed TCP/IP.
                                But the system as a whole was developed by a lot of people, none of
                                whom invented it. http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

                                Please don't waste our time, believe it or not we are serious here.
                                Mike is just our resident counter example.

                                David W.

                                --- In
                                <mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com>climatechangedebate@yahoog
                                roups.com,
                                bobmagi@ wrote:
                                >I proposed the methane warming of an ice age a few years ago at CCD,
                                >what I thought was an original idea,
                                >the thread something like "Bob's new theory".
                                >It turns out that it didn't fly,
                                >but had been thought about 10 years before.

                                Don't worry, Bob. You're not the first person to have done such a
                                thing.

                                "I invented the internet!" "I really did!"
                                <http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx>http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx

                                :)

                              • leeschnaiberg
                                ... Wow. I m touched David, thanks! As a LONG time lurker (way back to them Cch_debate when it was 2400 baud..) but for fear of seeming like one more nut, i ve
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jul 3, 2006
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "David E. Wojick"
                                  <dwojick@...> wrote:
                                  > guess what, each typically has one or more off-the-wall theorists.
                                  > Such people actually play an important role in science. Sometimes
                                  > they keep alive fringe theories that turn out to be right. I am not
                                  > saying Mike is right, just that he is not unusual in this context.
                                  > He represents a very real component in the debate.

                                  Wow. I'm touched David, thanks! As a LONG time lurker (way back to
                                  them Cch_debate when it was 2400 baud..) but for fear of seeming like
                                  one more nut, i've kept my theories to myself. well, to myself and <a
                                  href="http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=earthchange">googlevideo</a>.
                                  But really it's nice to hear that from you Dr. W, that the backwoods
                                  inventors and off the wall theorists have an imposrtant role! I feel
                                  like a Jester, sure, but now i feel like a Jester <i>to the King</i>!

                                  = ) lee
                                • David E. Wojick
                                  Delightful, lee. I walk the walk too. Back in 1973 I discovered the hidden structure of human thought, the issue tree. Or as I like to put it, how sentences
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jul 3, 2006
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    [climatechangedebate] Re: dillusional views
                                    Delightful, lee. I walk the walk too. Back in 1973 I discovered the hidden structure of human thought, the issue tree. Or as I like to put it, how sentences fit together. No one has still ever heard of this so you can imagine what my life has been like. Jester is a good metaphor, laugh to keep from going crazy. Oops, we are crazy aren't we? I forget.

                                    <[ : > ) David

                                    --- In >climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "David E. Wojick"
                                    <dwojick@...> wrote:
                                    > guess what, each typically has one or more off-the-wall
                                    theorists.
                                    > Such people actually play an important role in science.
                                    Sometimes
                                    > they keep alive fringe theories that turn out to be right. I am
                                    not
                                    > saying Mike is right, just that he is not unusual in this
                                    context.
                                    > He represents a very real component in the debate.

                                    Wow. I'm touched David, thanks! As a LONG time lurker (way back to
                                    them Cch_debate when it was 2400 baud..) but for fear of seeming like
                                    one more nut, i've kept my theories to myself. well, to myself and <a
                                    href=" >http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=earthchange ">googlevideo</a>.
                                    But really it's nice to hear that from you Dr. W, that the backwoods
                                    inventors and off the wall theorists have an imposrtant role! I feel
                                    like a Jester, sure, but now i feel like a Jester <i>to the King</i>!
                                    = ) lee
                                    --

                                    They say if you build a better mouse trap people will beat a path to your door. This is false. The truth is mice will shun you.

                                    David Wojick
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.