Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
engsoc
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]engsoc:
Well, I don't know if the article you cited is representative or not of Cato. As I said, I didn't spend much time on that site. But since you bring it as an exhibit for the defense, we might as well assume it is representative.
No, the fact that the article expresses views that differ from mine does not make it propaganda.
It is odd, I thought you were familiar with the Cato Institute. I am not very familiar with their current positions since we Rothbardians have a slightly different take on some issues. Rothbard was a founding member, but left in 1981 in a dispute. I occasionally read their site, but not enough to know if the paper that came up first in my site search was representative; and now you acknowledge little familiarity also. What a pair we make, eh?
engsoc:
I will tell you what it is exactly that unmistakably makes it a propaganda piece.
The promiscuous use of such vague terms as "likely" and "unlikely" by scientists who are trained in precision speaks volumes about how much is unknown.
This is just silly. [...]
You pick that sentence to support the claim that Cato is a propaganda organization? To those trained in theoretical mathematics most 'scientists' seem imprecise, but I understand that there is no 'truth' in the hard sciences, only ever better (we hope) approximations of reality.
Since almost all 'scientists' are dependent upon the government grant giving agencies, I would hope to see more precision in the language used when claims of 'scientific consensus' are thrown about.
As one who built a few modeling systems in the early days of computers, I know the limitations of predicting the future based on these attempts. Have any models yet included water vapor in the atmosphere in the system? I ask because water vapor is highly variable in the atmosphere, measurements of it are generally neglected in computer-generated forecast models.
"...High-altitude water-vapor measurement is a key element in modeling global warming because water has a much greater influence on Earth's tropospheric energy balance than trace gases such as carbon dioxide. However, water vapor is not accurately monitored, and little is known about its influence on global climatic change. ..." Do you disagree with this?
Anyway, I see no propaganda in the Cato position or the article.
-
LWM in another lie ...
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The liar LWM: ...Just like bucky attacks us all here (he calls us a "cabal") just because we are not likely to vote for Ron Paul ...
I was attacked by the cabal for stating that I support Ron Paul; I did not attack anyone for not supporting him, but I did respond. I received the exact same treatment that Mona just got.
I labeled 5 individuals as cabal members, and there may be a couple more. LWM wants to say that these 7 (at most) represents "all" here. Codswallop by a coward trying to hide amongst the crowd after all his foul slander of anyone he disagrees with.
I try to respond to slander like the sentence of LWM's that I quote above --- that is not attacking. Attacking is what LWM does daily.
LWM, you really need to seek help. This is not 'snark' --- if your words really represent you, and are not just playing a teenager's game, then you are becoming unhinged.
-
LWM says "piss off and go away"
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My my, you sure have a way with words. Too bad thoughts give you such trouble.
We have heard Leninists such as yourself yell and scream for decades, but it all comes down to we support freedom and you support death and aggression.
Plus, you are a foul and odious creature; one who makes this blog look bad because of your actions. I wonder how many people have been turned off by your writings and blame Glenn. I hope not too many.
-
engsoc again
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... Oh, so there's a splinter group of the Cato Institute... I'm afraid I don't have time right now to get acquainted with your positions and in what exactly you differ from them. ...
You seem to have trouble reading. Rothbard broke with the Cato group in 1981 and I do not follow them. You do not know them and I know little; yet I am answering your charge of 'propaganda'. I find that interesting.
The Anarcho-capitalists (me) find them a little too "inside the beltway" but they are an honest group of folks. I am sure they are wrong on some issues, who is not? But, it is unsupported slander to characterise them as LWM does.
... Does this reflect the actual scientific consensus? No, quite the opposite. So to make it look like there is a controversy, they have to resort to dishonest manipulations of the sources. ...
There is controversy. It borders on propaganda to say otherwise. I have followed this debate since 1970 (it was global freezing then) and there is no 'scientific fact' that the activities of man is the cause of global warming.
The 'climate models' are still mere toys, our star is a variable source of heat, and we have no idea what role water vapor plays in all of this. Plus, I never hear the scare mongers quote a climate historian --- seems they should play a prominent role in the debate. (perhaps they do, but it never seems to make the news)
" ... He purported to do a similar survey with different results. His letters [4] were rejected by the editors of Science. A crucial subset of his survey's results was posted and analyzed [5] by blogger Tim Lambert, and Dr. Peiser later conceded [6] that his survey contained some errors, though he maintains that the substance of his criticism of Oreskes's essay remains valid. ..."
Hmmm. A scientists who work focuses on the effects of environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and societal evolution is not good enough for you. You go so far as to call it "propaganda" to site it. Then you claim that he recanted! We see that you are mistaken.
I think the propaganda is not coming from Cato, but rather it is being used in this thread.