AGW namby-pambyism and all that associated clap-trap BLASTED !

[Don Klipstein]

No, only about 15%. And make up about about 40% of the noise.

I think much more. There are Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads and similar
ilk. There are other dittoheads, such as:

* Dittoheads of every notable political grouping
* Environmentalist dittoheads, who think nuclear power has to be bad, and
that every chemical that was not in the Gaerden of Eden (or that they
do not know *was* in the Garden of Eden such as formaldehyde), requires
*zero tolerance*
* I'm sure it's not hard to find others who believe and very willingly
pass along untruths and even outright lies, such as those who did or
even still believe that Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet.
(Thankfully few still spout that the top tax rate was raised to 70% when
Carter was President.)
* Audiophool dittoheads
* Similar ones along lines of 100 or 200 MPG carburetors and
century-lifetime lightbulbs kept out of production by industry,
extreme accomplishments of Tesla such as the Tungkuska explosion, etc.

I think all of these amount to a lot more than 15% of USA's population
and more than 40% of the noise and repetition of lies.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Martin Griffith]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:11:54 +0000 (UTC), in sci.electronics.design

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

Why the **** do you call them ditto heads?
They are **** heads, simple. Use the F word.

PC gone mad.....
Or am I missing something strangely North American, excluding Canada?



martin

 

[Don Klipstein]

Why the **** do you call them ditto heads?
They are **** heads, simple. Use the F word.

The term "dittohead" originated "historically" as a term for
vocally-agreeing fans of Rush Limbaugh.
I find this quite applicable elsewhere, notably among "audiophools".

PC gone mad.....
Or am I missing something strangely North American, excluding Canada?

There is a "PC madness", and very far from being confined to lestist
offenses that can be described as such.

For example, what are PC things to say on homosexuality and various
related issues?

At a gay pride parade?

In a "supervisors" ("municipal legislators" in SF) meeting in San
Francisco?

On a stage at a major event at the University of Pennsylvania?

In the locker room of the University of Pennsylvania's football team?

In the locker room of Penn State's football team?

In the locker room of the Dallas Cowboys?

At a political rally for a Republican candidate in Orange County CA?

Meanwhile, I see a difference between "PC" and "dittoheadism".

Where PC is a problem but dittoheadism is not running high, the chatter
is lower - there is less discussion while there is also less debate due to
stifling of expression.
Of course, "PC" elsewhere often rears its head but deservedly gets cut
down - and those successfully being on the right side of a battle in that
area often find it "PC" to minimize the victory in order to exaggerate the
problem's extent or its enforcement extent from nameable authorities, or
to exaggerate extent of that problem being offense from "The Left".

In areas where there is a lot of "dittoheadism", plenty speak out to
repeat what is promoted to spout. Often this happens in social circles
where people engage in dittohead activity to be accepted. In many of such
social circles, many and possibly most of the willing entrants may be true
believers or willing to fall into a cult. Many fairly willingly repeat
"The Party Line".

"PC" without "dittoheadism" is something that I see as *very* possible
and often achieved, and in that situation I see more people keeping their
mouths shut out of not feeling free to say what they believe because
many oppose the "party line" but do not feel free to do so.

Of course, I would not disagree with anyone calling stiflers of open
debate 4-letter words, or voting against such offenders at the ballot box
or with wallets!

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Martin Griffith]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 01:02:50 +0000 (UTC), in sci.electronics.design

The term "dittohead" originated "historically" as a term for
vocally-agreeing fans of Rush Limbaugh.
I find this quite applicable elsewhere, notably among "audiophools".


There is a "PC madness", and very far from being confined to lestist
offenses that can be described as such.

For example, what are PC things to say on homosexuality and various
related issues?

At a gay pride parade?

In a "supervisors" ("municipal legislators" in SF) meeting in San
Francisco?

On a stage at a major event at the University of Pennsylvania?

In the locker room of the University of Pennsylvania's football team?

In the locker room of Penn State's football team?

In the locker room of the Dallas Cowboys?

At a political rally for a Republican candidate in Orange County CA?

Meanwhile, I see a difference between "PC" and "dittoheadism".

Where PC is a problem but dittoheadism is not running high, the chatter
is lower - there is less discussion while there is also less debate due to
stifling of expression.
Of course, "PC" elsewhere often rears its head but deservedly gets cut
down - and those successfully being on the right side of a battle in that
area often find it "PC" to minimize the victory in order to exaggerate the
problem's extent or its enforcement extent from nameable authorities, or
to exaggerate extent of that problem being offense from "The Left".

In areas where there is a lot of "dittoheadism", plenty speak out to
repeat what is promoted to spout. Often this happens in social circles
where people engage in dittohead activity to be accepted. In many of such
social circles, many and possibly most of the willing entrants may be true
believers or willing to fall into a cult. Many fairly willingly repeat
"The Party Line".

"PC" without "dittoheadism" is something that I see as *very* possible
and often achieved, and in that situation I see more people keeping their
mouths shut out of not feeling free to say what they believe because
many oppose the "party line" but do not feel free to do so.

Of course, I would not disagree with anyone calling stiflers of open
debate 4-letter words, or voting against such offenders at the ballot box
or with wallets!

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

Thanks for that.

Why did the " B ark" come into mind while I was reading your reply?


martin

 

[Martin Brown]

Projecting as bit, are we? I have one political belief, and that is
that "politics is dirty".

This isn't politics.

The author is a top scientist based at the Cavendish laboratory - his
book details the various schemes that greens and others have proposed
for resolving our longer term energy problems. His book is very even
handed about delivering brickbats to schemes that will never work.

You have declared quite clearly that you will not read anything that
conflicts with your firmly held beliefs on AGW.

But they can't be all that firm if you have to bury your head in the
sand to continue to believe in them can they?

In case you change your mind. The FAQs from WG I on the physical
science evidence are online at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

And form a reasonable laymans introduction to the basic science
without too much of the technical details. The full report is also
online at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

(warning some of the files are big)

My main transportation vehicle gets over 30 mpg.

I am so impressed. My new car does roughly twice that at just over 60
mpg. Its predecessor had a lifetime average of 58.0 mpg over 140k
miles. OK it is a diesel and our gallons are a bit bigger than the
short measure you use.

No, only about 15%. And make up about about 40% of the noise.

And 55% of the US electorate.

First problem, the co2 concentrations have followed average
temperature for 400,000 years.

But now we are changing the atmospheric CO2 concentration directly and
at an increasing rate. And we know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere
will necessarily trap more heat. The correlation cuts both ways.

Second problem, none of the guessers will reveal their models yet.

I suggest you actually read some of the original scientific reports
rather that the US dittohead "science" sites that spread populist anti-
science. I think you will be surprised just how carefully researched
the scientific evidence is for AGW.

I have yet to see much real science from either side.

That will be because you refuse point blank to look at any of the
scientific evidence in support of AGW.

Your post, that i am responding to, disproves much of that assertion.

What makes you think that?
I suppose the crash and burn solution as oil prices go through the
roof will work after a fashion but it would not have been my first
choice for a managed transition to better fuel economy.

I wonder which one of Ford, GM or Chrysler will go bust first?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/pressReleases/idUKN2052825620080621

Regards,
Martin Brown