Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by manacker

May 27, 2012, 11:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by John Whitman

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

$

0

0

R. Gates

“Liberal” in US political jargon means “left-leaning”, “socialist” or what is currently touted as “progressive”.

“Liberal” in the older European political jargon means an ideology espousing “free market capitalism”.

“Fascism” has been defined as a “radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology” while “communism” is a “totalitarian ideology structured upon state ownership of the means of production”.

In theory, “communism” is an international movement, but in its practical manifestation, “communism” is often “nationalistic”

Neither “fascism” nor “communism” is “liberal” in the European sense – while either one might be in the US sense.

Confused?

(Me too).

Max

---

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by John Whitman

May 27, 2012, 11:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by manacker

$

0

0

Louise,

Poor victim is the PR myth projected by the expensive PR firms for CRU and it’s international Team of CG1 & CG2 notoriety. It is an idiotic myth, they have the lion’s share of gov’t funding & the overwelming support of the MSM plus a sympathetic IPCC ideology, so their self serving victim ploy is as hilarious as the protesters @ ICCC-7.

John

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

May 27, 2012, 11:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by John Whitman

$

0

0

Indeed, derision is the explanatory concept we have been looking for. Many thanks.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

May 27, 2012, 11:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

$

0

0

kcom | May 26, 2012 at 9:27 pm |

Politcal witch hunt?

Please, enlighten me.

Who was burned at the stake? Who imprisoned? Who persecuted?

Name them, and name specifically who did it.

I’d love to hear this explained.

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

May 27, 2012, 12:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

$

0

0

Whoever your quote is from simply did not understand. Society is indeed being victimized by warmists and alarmists, and this was alluded to repeatedly, as it should be. But the videos certainly give no sense of desperation. Quite the contrary, as we are winning on most political fronts.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

May 27, 2012, 12:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

$

0

0

Greybeard | May 27, 2012 at 3:20 am |

By quoting the original in context, and reminding of what the facts actually were?

Yeah. “Misdirects.” Sure.

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by manacker

May 27, 2012, 12:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

$

0

0

WHT makes up for his opinionated viewpoints with his high self-esteem and his charm.

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

May 27, 2012, 12:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by John Whitman

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by manacker

$

0

0

Here is an understanding account:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-climate-change-debate-where-are-we-now/
Note Jim Sensenbrenner’s progress report.

But I particularly like this: “So while much has been accomplished, much remains to be done. Former Apollo astronaut and senator from New Mexico Harrison Schmitt believes the number one priority for the skeptical community is to “recapture” youngsters in the K-12 grades. It’s too late for this generation, he says, because they have become so thoroughly indoctrinated. But Schmitt believes it is critical for the future that young people be given the opportunity to be taught both sides of the climate change debate rather than brainwashed to accept the AGW religion.”

This is of course just what my Heartland climate curriculum project aims to do.

---

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by John Whitman

May 27, 2012, 12:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Rob Starkey

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by David Wojick

$

0

0

Louise,

Are you claiming the police were not watching the protesters and are you saying that the police were not seriously prepped to intervene given the protest intentions to disrupt?

John

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Rob Starkey

May 27, 2012, 12:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by John Whitman

$

0

0

Louise

I make no assumptions about any countries currently with nuclear technology other than they are independent nations that will do what they believe is in their own best interest. I do not disagree with the use of modern nuclear power at all. India and China had the capability to build these plants independently. Most other nations would not and would require vast outside support.

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by manacker

May 27, 2012, 12:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Rob Starkey

$

0

0

R. Gates

“It’s over, Jim.” is not REALLY “a lie”, as you suggest.

But (assuming that the “IT” is the late 20th century warming cycle), a more accurate description for the HI billboard would be:

“It’s over for now, Jim.”

(Even though we can all see that it has, indeed, stopped warming since 1998, none of us here know whether or not or when the warming will resume after the current 14+-year hiatus.)

Max

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

May 27, 2012, 12:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by manacker

$

0

0

FUD hates first-hand records of what really happened.

Obscuritanists hate simple, truthful statements of what people are thinking and why they think it, while going about their work of discovery and understanding in research.

Alarmists hate youtube when it shows what people actually said, because they then can’t uncover WMDs by misquoting and changing the original.

I urge any researcher, any scientist, working on anything to begin from the cradle of their researches to record not just the data and the methods, but also by video their thinking, at each stage, and make and keep it all public.

Then the FUD will die, the obscuritanists dry up and blow away, the alarmists wither to nothing. Fight the anti-scientific impulses of ignorance, dismissalism, and the zealous conspiracy theorists who believe to their core that you are part of a worldwide collusion to cost them their freedom by costing their free-riding donors the opportunity to get something from all of us for nothing.

Even if you don’t agree with me about their motivations, you know they’re out there. You see them spreading ignorance and FUD all the time. Fight it by keeping your data and methods public from the beginning. And do like Stephen Schneider, and just speak publicly about what you’re doing.

In ten years time you’ll be glad you did.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Wagathon

May 27, 2012, 12:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

$

0

0

Whether you wish to use labels like “sharply dull” or “darkly illuminating” while commmunism may be to the left of fascism both are far to the left of respect for individual liberty, economic freedom and personal responsibiliy. perhaps you should look more the “pure roots” of your argument and reconsider as to whether it was the national socialism of the workers party or more the result of a wilfully blind German population that 6 million Jews were killed in Europe.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

May 27, 2012, 12:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Wagathon

$

0

0

The self-delete option, seldom used apparently because either no one reads the House Rules or no one has any doubt about anything they’ve ever posted, is to send our host an email and request she strike-out one of your past posts.

It’s by far a superior option, as it doesn’t mess up threading.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Brandon Shollenberger

May 27, 2012, 11:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

$

0

0

Bart R, you just said we can derive all of mathematics from Peano’s axioms based upon operations “derived from Set Theory axiomatically.” That makes no sense. If we’re using axioms from set theory, we’re not deriving anything from Peano’s axioms. You could say we’re deriving things from multiple axiom systems, but that’s nothing like what you said (and it isn’t even necessary).

You can make snide implications about me and/or my level of knowledge all you want, but everything I’ve said about math has been exactly correct. The fact that you are inconsistent/incoherent doesn’t make me wrong.

---

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Beth Cooper

May 27, 2012, 11:29 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Brandon Shollenberger

$

0

0

Unintended consequences ….OMG, how did I, (?) get caught up in a discussion on Set Theory?

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Brandon Shollenberger

May 27, 2012, 11:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Beth Cooper

$

0

0

Bart R:

Giving us to understand all you did was take wikipedia’s word for what Halmos said.

Or that you’re an unreliable source.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

May 27, 2012, 11:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Brandon Shollenberger

$

0

0

Brandon Shollenberger | May 28, 2012 at 2:28 am |

Wow. It’s sad what energy drinks do to the mind.

Read Halmos before you make claims about Halmos.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

May 27, 2012, 11:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by tempterrain

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

$

0

0

Beth Cooper | May 28, 2012 at 2:29 am |

That’d be by the functioning of the Axiom of Choice.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by tempterrain

May 27, 2012, 11:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Bart R

$

0

0

I can hear Judith saying ‘of course doubt hasn’t been eliminated’. Mayb not. Doubt over the HIV/AIDs link hasn’t been eliminated either but I’d still caution all Climate etc readers against engaging in unprotected causal sex.