Talk-n-Dog wrote:
dave wrote:
Talk-n-Dog wrote:
dave wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:57 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:

Acutally, the people most apt to use the term "volatility"
would be
those trading on stocks, bonds, or commodities.
Volatility is the measure of the state of instability. You think
weather
would be more volatile with global warming, I say that cooling would
have a more volatile effect.- A. McIntire
So McIntire is a stock broker?

So you're not smart enough to understand the definition?- A.
McIntire

I've noticed that the realists quote institutions and other
collective bodies, while the denialists are more apt to cite single
individuals e.g. Lindzen and this McIntire dude.

Socialists work in collectives happily, though individualism is
absolutely legitimate in research and science.

The military is a "socialist" organization. Your unit is only as good
as your "weakest" member, so it is in everyones interest that everyone
is as strong as possible.


Member(s).... as with any team effort are part of the equation. Freedom
on the other hand... allows for weak and strong.

And in the military you go where - and do what you're told. You can't
spend or earn or marry how you want, and they have Hillary care,
complete Medical coverage for children and all.


If you want to be a socialist in America the Military might be the place
to start looking.

The USA was conceived as a utopia where everyone shares the blessings of
liberty. The people who want private control of everything, while
euphemistically screaming "freedom", are the same assholes we fought in
1775-1813.

On Feb 27, 4:46 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
All of the worlds great scientists have been Socialists, and all are
Liberal as Liberalism is a product of education.

Einstein is probably the best example.

"dave" wrote

What about DR. Schockley?

A relative nobody, who suffered from a deep mental illness. A fine
example of KKKonservatism, rotten and racist to the core.

He was a nasty old man. One of his friends actually described him as having
reverse charisma; he would walk into a room and you instantly took a
disliking to him. He was, at one time, a young man, a nice young man, not a
particularly lovable young man. He was, among other things, extraordinarily
bright, brighter than anybody he'd ever run into and he knew it, he was a
bit arrogant about it. He lacked socialisation, his parents were, let's say
eccentric, kept him out of school until the 8th grade, so he grew up not
knowing how to handle and deal with other people. And as he got older he got
what one psychologist said, paranoid, classic paranoia. His racial stuff is
nonsense, he believed that you could tell how smart a black person was by
how much white blood they had, you could even be able to measure it.

He died alone in agony and in disgrace. His story is a Greek tragedy without
the redemption at the end. By the time he was done he was so obsessed by
what he was trying to do you couldn't have a conversation with him without
discussing this stuff, even his children couldn't do it. His wife once told
another writer that some day we may die alone and he did. He died of
prostate cancer, he had no friends, his wife who was still alive did not
have a memorial service. And one of the reasons I suspect is that nobody
would show up, including his children, from whom he was alienated as well.

His sons detested him, one didn't see him for the last 20 years of his life.

Sad story. So one might suspect, as WCFields once noted,"A man who
hates dogs and children can't be all bad"

On Feb 24, 12:57 am, dave wrote:
wrote:

Acutally, the people most apt to use the term "volatility" would be
those trading on stocks, bonds, or commodities.

Volatility is the measure of the state of instability. You think
weather
would be more volatile with global warming, I say that cooling would
have a more volatile effect.- A. McIntire

So McIntire is a stock broker?

One who fancies himself as a climatologist, it seems.

"bill" wrote
I rather think that this whole conversation has strayed a bit off
topic. The fact is that a worldwide year long temperature change
cannot be construed as "weather" under any conditions.

Ok, we will call it Pseudo-Weather.

"John M." wrote
Sad story. So one might suspect, as WCFields once noted,"A man who
hates dogs and children can't be all bad"

He was improperly socialized as a youth, and like Michael Jackson
surrounds himself with Yes Men, wasn't attached to reality and hence was
permitted to drift into complete self destructive insanity.

It is no coincidence that his racist, anti-social tendencies drew him to
RepubliKKKanism.

"John M." wrote
One who fancies himself as a climatologist, it seems.

Interesting that he doesn't have any clue of how to interpret either the
global temperature time series, or the stock market time series.

Clueless to the end.

On Feb 24, 9:08*pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
wrote

YOU are the one alleging the earth is warming up at a rate of 10C
per century.
V for Vendicar wrote:
I have made no such statements.

From your Friday, May 11, 2007 post.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...dc7f8a134768b8...


"The fact is, 27'C is a much more reasonable estimate of the future
climate
that some estimates show as being 10'C hotter than today. The global
average then rises from 15'C to 25'C."


- You're a habitual liar- A. McIntire

wrote
YOU are the one alleging the earth is warming up at a rate of 10C
per century.

V for Vendicar wrote:
I have made no such statements.

wrote
"The fact is, 27'C is a much more reasonable estimate of the future
climate that some estimates show as being 10'C hotter than today. The
global
average then rises from 15'C to 25'C."

Proving that I alledged nothing that you claimed I did.

You are a habitual liar A. McIntire