Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:s1zug.566$Pa.68562@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>I've watched enough Tom Brokaw shows to know I don't trust him or his
>>message. No need to watch more. Kind or like eating squash. I only
>>had to eat so much before I know I really didn't like the stuff. No
>>need to keep trying it every week.
>
>
> I like the analogy except for one thing: It might be nice to try squash
> again in 5 years, or 20 years, or whatever to see if you might like it
> now. Tastes change. Opinions change. Even facts change sometimes.

Yes, once my taste buds begin to die I'll probably like squash. And
when my brain cells begin to die, I may listen to Brokaw and his ilk.
:-)


>>Same with folks like Mikey Moore. I just don't need to see a lot to
>>know their message is BS.
>
>
> I watch Michael Moore to see what kind of BS will be circulating. I
> know he is full of it most of the time too, but watching it is still an
> education.

I guess we have different definitions of education. To me education
consists of learning things that are important and useful.



>>Open minded means you take a look at many things. I do that often. I
>>always say I'll try almost anything once.
>
>
> Sorry, but you just contradicted yourself. You look at many things
> often but only try anything once? Sounds like the definition of
> insanity to me :-)

No contradiction. I often will take a look at a number of alternatives
in a given area.



>>Going back again and again
>>to things that don't work for you isn't being open-minded, it is being
>>compulsive at best.
>
>
> It depends on what you are talking about. Sometimes it can take a few
> viewings of something to see the intended point of view.

True, in some cases, I agree.


>>You've heard the definition of insanity, right?
>
>
> Having a psychology degree, I've learned many definitions of insanity.
> Why? Which one do you think fits you? Probably something to do with
> Oedipus here I'm thinking :-)

No, I'm thinking of the definition that insanity is defined as doing the
same thing over and over and expecting different results. :-)
That would be like watching Tom Brokaw over and over and expecting him
to be something other than a liberal person who reports stories for
political purposes. I don't expect him to change so watching him again
would be insane.

Matt

 

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:s1zug.566$Pa.68562@news1.epix.net:
>
>> I've watched enough Tom Brokaw shows to know I don't trust him or his
>> message. No need to watch more. Kind or like eating squash. I only
>> had to eat so much before I know I really didn't like the stuff. No
>> need to keep trying it every week.

>> Same with folks like Mikey Moore. I just don't need to see a lot to
>> know their message is BS.

Agree on the squash and Moore but Brokaw has more character in his pinky
than 20 Moores will ever have. I just watched half of the show (recording
the rest for later) and there is no doubt warming is taking place. There
are hard facts on that and anyone will agree. The question is why? Maybe
that will be in the second half.

 

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:s1zug.566$Pa.68562@news1.epix.net:
>
>> I've watched enough Tom Brokaw shows to know I don't trust him or his
>> message. No need to watch more. Kind or like eating squash. I only
>> had to eat so much before I know I really didn't like the stuff. No
>> need to keep trying it every week.

>> Same with folks like Mikey Moore. I just don't need to see a lot to
>> know their message is BS.

Agree on the squash and Moore but Brokaw has more character in his pinky
than 20 Moores will ever have. I just watched half of the show (recording
the rest for later) and there is no doubt warming is taking place. There
are hard facts on that and anyone will agree. The question is why? Maybe
that will be in the second half.

 

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:s1zug.566$Pa.68562@news1.epix.net:
>
>> I've watched enough Tom Brokaw shows to know I don't trust him or his
>> message. No need to watch more. Kind or like eating squash. I only
>> had to eat so much before I know I really didn't like the stuff. No
>> need to keep trying it every week.

>> Same with folks like Mikey Moore. I just don't need to see a lot to
>> know their message is BS.

Agree on the squash and Moore but Brokaw has more character in his pinky
than 20 Moores will ever have. I just watched half of the show (recording
the rest for later) and there is no doubt warming is taking place. There
are hard facts on that and anyone will agree. The question is why? Maybe
that will be in the second half.

 

i think someone should have renamed the first post in this string as "I wish
to start a debate"


"Deck" <decan9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36f92b932b5ef45b76afca1dc553d482@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
> dinosaur farts caused it before!
>

 

i think someone should have renamed the first post in this string as "I wish
to start a debate"


"Deck" <decan9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36f92b932b5ef45b76afca1dc553d482@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
> dinosaur farts caused it before!
>

 

i think someone should have renamed the first post in this string as "I wish
to start a debate"


"Deck" <decan9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36f92b932b5ef45b76afca1dc553d482@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
> dinosaur farts caused it before!
>

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>>news:s1zug.566$Pa.68562@news1.epix.net:
>>
>>
>>>I've watched enough Tom Brokaw shows to know I don't trust him or his
>>>message. No need to watch more. Kind or like eating squash. I only
>>>had to eat so much before I know I really didn't like the stuff. No
>>>need to keep trying it every week.
>
>
>>>Same with folks like Mikey Moore. I just don't need to see a lot to
>>>know their message is BS.
>
>
> Agree on the squash and Moore but Brokaw has more character in his pinky
> than 20 Moores will ever have. I just watched half of the show (recording
> the rest for later) and there is no doubt warming is taking place. There
> are hard facts on that and anyone will agree. The question is why? Maybe
> that will be in the second half.

I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their agenda.

I really don't consider Brokaw to have much more character than Moore.
And in many ways he is even more dangerous. Moore is so blatant with
his message and tactics that pretty much any thinking person sees
through it. Brokaw is much more polished and subtle and it makes his
message, although it is similar to Moore's at its core, see much more
credible.


Matt

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>>news:s1zug.566$Pa.68562@news1.epix.net:
>>
>>
>>>I've watched enough Tom Brokaw shows to know I don't trust him or his
>>>message. No need to watch more. Kind or like eating squash. I only
>>>had to eat so much before I know I really didn't like the stuff. No
>>>need to keep trying it every week.
>
>
>>>Same with folks like Mikey Moore. I just don't need to see a lot to
>>>know their message is BS.
>
>
> Agree on the squash and Moore but Brokaw has more character in his pinky
> than 20 Moores will ever have. I just watched half of the show (recording
> the rest for later) and there is no doubt warming is taking place. There
> are hard facts on that and anyone will agree. The question is why? Maybe
> that will be in the second half.

I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their agenda.

I really don't consider Brokaw to have much more character than Moore.
And in many ways he is even more dangerous. Moore is so blatant with
his message and tactics that pretty much any thinking person sees
through it. Brokaw is much more polished and subtle and it makes his
message, although it is similar to Moore's at its core, see much more
credible.


Matt

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>>news:s1zug.566$Pa.68562@news1.epix.net:
>>
>>
>>>I've watched enough Tom Brokaw shows to know I don't trust him or his
>>>message. No need to watch more. Kind or like eating squash. I only
>>>had to eat so much before I know I really didn't like the stuff. No
>>>need to keep trying it every week.
>
>
>>>Same with folks like Mikey Moore. I just don't need to see a lot to
>>>know their message is BS.
>
>
> Agree on the squash and Moore but Brokaw has more character in his pinky
> than 20 Moores will ever have. I just watched half of the show (recording
> the rest for later) and there is no doubt warming is taking place. There
> are hard facts on that and anyone will agree. The question is why? Maybe
> that will be in the second half.

I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their agenda.

I really don't consider Brokaw to have much more character than Moore.
And in many ways he is even more dangerous. Moore is so blatant with
his message and tactics that pretty much any thinking person sees
through it. Brokaw is much more polished and subtle and it makes his
message, although it is similar to Moore's at its core, see much more
credible.


Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
> challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
> global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
> scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
> Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
> missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their
> agenda.

All you have to do is look at the photos of many regions of ice packs and
glaciers. They are melting. There is no doubt that we are warming. The
real question is, does this come from a natural climate cycles, or is it man
induced?

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
> challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
> global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
> scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
> Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
> missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their
> agenda.

All you have to do is look at the photos of many regions of ice packs and
glaciers. They are melting. There is no doubt that we are warming. The
real question is, does this come from a natural climate cycles, or is it man
induced?

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
> challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
> global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
> scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
> Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
> missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their
> agenda.

All you have to do is look at the photos of many regions of ice packs and
glaciers. They are melting. There is no doubt that we are warming. The
real question is, does this come from a natural climate cycles, or is it man
induced?

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
>>I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
>>challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
>>global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
>>scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
>>Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
>>missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their
>>agenda.
>
>
> All you have to do is look at the photos of many regions of ice packs and
> glaciers. They are melting. There is no doubt that we are warming. The
> real question is, does this come from a natural climate cycles, or is it man
> induced?

Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It
means the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at
the equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't look
at one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even getting
an accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as trivial as the
global warming crowd would have us believe.


Matt

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
>>I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
>>challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
>>global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
>>scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
>>Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
>>missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their
>>agenda.
>
>
> All you have to do is look at the photos of many regions of ice packs and
> glaciers. They are melting. There is no doubt that we are warming. The
> real question is, does this come from a natural climate cycles, or is it man
> induced?

Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It
means the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at
the equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't look
at one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even getting
an accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as trivial as the
global warming crowd would have us believe.


Matt