Text 11322, 96 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 11:47:31 av Angelika Tobisch (14760.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 11299 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (14737.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
Vorxion schrieb:

>> Put down the book and look out of the window some time or watch the
>> news. Our climate _is_ changing.
> 
> Assuming that this isn't a generalisation (the weather is -always-
> changing)

Weather, however, is not the same as climate as everybody who has read
some literature on the topic should know.

> , in specific to AGW this makes the vast and unfounded inferences
> that what is happening -right now- is actually part of a steady-state,
> linear, or exponential one-way trend.  Historical data show that NOT to be
> true.  In point of fact, there's a roughly 11,000 year period between
> colder periods and we're nearing the end of one relatively soon.

I said nothing about the reasons for the change, I just stressed the
fact that there are changes.

> Suffice it to say that almost everyone here has attacked not only me, but
> James.

Where? I was talking about facts, I did not attack you or him personally.

> At any rate, everyone has reacted about as I'd
> expect the sheeple of the world to react--quite typically, mind mostly
> closed, adhering to dogmatic claims repeated often and loudly by our media
> and a scientific establishment whose credibility is questionable given
> commercial and governmental interests involved.

"Sheeple of the world", that's one personal attack on your side.

Suffice to say that your repeated referrals to only one book make it
appear somewhat hypocritical for you to call people dogmatic.

> In short, I'm not surprised.  I'm also just giving up as a bad lot the
> entire attempt to open anyone's eyes to even the -possibility- that things
> aren't as some would have everyone believe.  Let someone else try to do the
> world a favour--someone that has more patience than I do.

Woah, excuse me for not seeing you splendor earlier on.

Seriously though, you really don't feel like you're going just a little
overboard here?

> And as another note, since people seemed to focus on something that isn't
> even -mentioned- in the book, yes, it was the -scale- of the holocaust
> that was in debate, not that it happened at all.

Given the nature of the holocaust, I personally find discussions of the
scale distasteful. If it were just 1 million victims instead of 6
million it wouldn't make it any less of a horrendous crime. Any
responsible scientist should be aware that statements doubting the
numbers can very easily be used to belittle the crime itself by some
people and should thus exercise extreme caution when talking about the
topic. The quotes I read do not reflect caution.

> He's -far- from the
> first person I've seen make this claim, and in fact cites other sources.
> Actually, the numbers as presented in at least a few presentations by
> people that did research into the matter would seem to indicate there was
> possibly a fairly significant discrepancy between reality and the official
> accounts.  I'm not saying it's one way or the other.  I'm saying there's
> enough doubt that I've got an open mind on the matter.  That I have an
> open mind is more than I can say for 99% of the people that responded.
> Congratulations, you've all been indoctrinated very well.  I'm sure you
> make excellent drones, devoid of critical thought.

Three more insults on your side, you're on a run.

[...]

> I refuse to further discuss anything O.T. "while I wait" in this
> group ever again if I can help it, as I find the shallowness of thought,
> blind faith, and generally derogatory attitude towards anyone that even
> engages in critical thought to be most depressing.

"Shallowness of thought" and "blind faith", we're at 6.

> It simply reaffirms for
> me exactly how we manage to get the leaders that are elected and how the
> system propogates itself ad nauseum.  You know your B5 stuff, and that's
> about all the credit I'd give you, from open-mindedness to common
> decency--two things extremely lacking in general here.

Only focusing on indisputable insults: lack of common decency makes for
number 7.

> Despite being personally maligned

Okay, again, where? I've got at least seven from you and none from me.

Angelika
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)