This is one zinger of an article.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

The author, Richard Lindzen, is Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
Science at MIT.

Joe Gwinn


WSJ 12 April 2006, page A14.

The controversy continues -

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Ri...S_Lindzen.html


On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:24:11 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

This is one zinger of an article.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

The author, Richard Lindzen, is Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
Science at MIT.

Joe Gwinn


WSJ 12 April 2006, page A14.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:54:51 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
What's Next quickly quoth:

--topposting corrected--

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:24:11 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

This is one zinger of an article.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

The author, Richard Lindzen, is Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
Science at MIT.

The controversy continues -

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Ri...S_Lindzen.html

This guy should go purchase another foil hat. QUICKLY!

http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


--
Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive.
--Elbert Hubbard

"What's Next" wrote in message
...
The controversy continues -

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Ri...S_Lindzen.html

Right, and the pictures accompanying the article confirm its
credibility.

- Bob Headrick

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
This is one zinger of an article.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

The author, Richard Lindzen, is Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
Science at MIT.

Joe Gwinn


WSJ 12 April 2006, page A14.

This reminds me of the intimidation that scientists run into in other
areas such as Intelligent Design or even in any criticism of Darwinism.
You'd better toe the line, or else. The common denominator seems to be
that the liberal side doesn't want an opposing view presented. Not very
tolerant.
GW

In article .com, Gus says...

This reminds me of the intimidation that scientists run into in other
areas such as Intelligent Design or even in any criticism of Darwinism.
You'd better toe the line, or else.

Ain't that just the ****s Gus. I keep trying to push my geocentric
theory and nobody buys it. They keep trying to intimidate me into
believing that

The earth goes around the sun

There ain't no phlogiston

The world wasn't made in a week

It wasn't made a couple thousand years ago

And ID is creationism and they're both religion.

Just a crying shame, eh? I suggest that you restrict
yourself to doctors that believe in the 4 humour theory
and bleed you with leeches the next time you get sick.

Hey, those are theories too.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 18 Apr 2006 10:20:42 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article .com, Gus says...

This reminds me of the intimidation that scientists run into in other
areas such as Intelligent Design or even in any criticism of Darwinism.
You'd better toe the line, or else.

Ain't that just the ****s Gus. I keep trying to push my geocentric
theory and nobody buys it. They keep trying to intimidate me into
believing that

The earth goes around the sun

There ain't no phlogiston

The world wasn't made in a week

It wasn't made a couple thousand years ago

And ID is creationism and they're both religion.

Just a crying shame, eh? I suggest that you restrict
yourself to doctors that believe in the 4 humour theory
and bleed you with leeches the next time you get sick.

Hey, those are theories too.

Jim
Greetings Jim,
I heard a fellow say something that really drove home his point. The
theory of evolution is just a theory. The theory of gravitation is
also just a theory. Both have changed as time goes on. Yet even though
the theory of gravitation is just a theory gravity itself is a fact.
We are just trying to find something to explain all the observations.
It's implied by calling something a theory that it's not also a fact.
Evolution in our recorded history is a fact. I suppose that someone
can argue that humans have not evolved in recorded history, but many
short lived organisms have evolved in just the last few years. I
wonder if the descendants of the survivors of the black death would
have a lower death rate that the population in general if exposed to
the black death today.
Eric

In article , Eric R Snow says...

I heard a fellow say something that really drove home his point. The
theory of evolution is just a theory. The theory of gravitation is
also just a theory. Both have changed as time goes on. Yet even though
the theory of gravitation is just a theory gravity itself is a fact.
We are just trying to find something to explain all the observations.
It's implied by calling something a theory that it's not also a fact.
Evolution in our recorded history is a fact. I suppose that someone
can argue that humans have not evolved in recorded history, but many
short lived organisms have evolved in just the last few years. I
wonder if the descendants of the survivors of the black death would
have a lower death rate that the population in general if exposed to
the black death today.

Apparently there is evidence that the folks who predominantly survived
the 1918 influenza epidemic tended to be decendents of plague survivors.
Sounds crazy but I recall reading that.

Maybe we could suspend an anvil over Gus's head and see if the theory
of graviation could be changed to IG. g

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

Maybe we could suspend an anvil over Gus's head and see if the theory
of graviation could be changed to IG. g


Oh, now you're just being mean. g

Did I strike a nerve? I'm sorry if I did...ok not really. I was just
trying to say that other theories, ideas or whatever you want to call
them in science besides opposition to global warming also run up
against intimidation. If the theories or hypothesis are so poor they
should be no threat to the established idea but somehow just "good
science" isn't enough to disprove them. What's used is intimidation,
job loss, defunding etc. If the ideas are so stupid as you suggest, why
are they such a threat?

Why is it that the liberal side is usually the side that wants to shut
down discussion? Don't they think of themselves as tolerant?

GW

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:10:57 -0700, Eric R Snow wrote:

On 18 Apr 2006 10:20:42 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article .com, Gus says...

This reminds me of the intimidation that scientists run into in other
areas such as Intelligent Design or even in any criticism of Darwinism.
You'd better toe the line, or else.

Ain't that just the ****s Gus. I keep trying to push my geocentric
theory and nobody buys it. They keep trying to intimidate me into
believing that

The earth goes around the sun

There ain't no phlogiston

The world wasn't made in a week

It wasn't made a couple thousand years ago

And ID is creationism and they're both religion.

Just a crying shame, eh? I suggest that you restrict
yourself to doctors that believe in the 4 humour theory
and bleed you with leeches the next time you get sick.

Hey, those are theories too.

Jim
Greetings Jim,
I heard a fellow say something that really drove home his point. The
theory of evolution is just a theory. The theory of gravitation is
also just a theory. Both have changed as time goes on. Yet even though
the theory of gravitation is just a theory gravity itself is a fact.
We are just trying to find something to explain all the observations.
It's implied by calling something a theory that it's not also a fact.
Evolution in our recorded history is a fact. I suppose that someone
can argue that humans have not evolved in recorded history, but many
short lived organisms have evolved in just the last few years. I
wonder if the descendants of the survivors of the black death would
have a lower death rate that the population in general if exposed to
the black death today.
Eric


A theory is an hypothesis that has a proof.


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:45:43 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:10:57 -0700, Eric R Snow wrote:

On 18 Apr 2006 10:20:42 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article .com, Gus says...

This reminds me of the intimidation that scientists run into in other
areas such as Intelligent Design or even in any criticism of Darwinism.
You'd better toe the line, or else.

Ain't that just the ****s Gus. I keep trying to push my geocentric
theory and nobody buys it. They keep trying to intimidate me into
believing that

The earth goes around the sun

There ain't no phlogiston

The world wasn't made in a week

It wasn't made a couple thousand years ago

And ID is creationism and they're both religion.

Just a crying shame, eh? I suggest that you restrict
yourself to doctors that believe in the 4 humour theory
and bleed you with leeches the next time you get sick.

Hey, those are theories too.

Jim
Greetings Jim,
I heard a fellow say something that really drove home his point. The
theory of evolution is just a theory. The theory of gravitation is
also just a theory. Both have changed as time goes on. Yet even though
the theory of gravitation is just a theory gravity itself is a fact.
We are just trying to find something to explain all the observations.
It's implied by calling something a theory that it's not also a fact.
Evolution in our recorded history is a fact. I suppose that someone
can argue that humans have not evolved in recorded history, but many
short lived organisms have evolved in just the last few years. I
wonder if the descendants of the survivors of the black death would
have a lower death rate that the population in general if exposed to
the black death today.
Eric


A theory is an hypothesis that has a proof.


Mark Rand
RTFM
Then Intelligent Design is not a theory.
ERS

I have been on this planet 50 years and I have never seen TIN foil.
Aluminum yes.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 05:57:40 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
(daniel peterman) quickly quoth:

I have been on this planet 50 years and I have never seen TIN foil.
Aluminum yes.

So pay attention the next 50, eh? vbg

(True, Mom had aluminum foil when I was growing up, too.)

Historic pics:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/reco...tinfoil77.html
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/tinfoil.html
http://www.yale.edu/ramona/PVFall2003/SierraKendra.jpg
Oops, that last one was aluminum foil. Sorry.


--
Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive.
--Elbert Hubbard

daniel peterman wrote:
I have been on this planet 50 years and I have never seen TIN foil.
Aluminum yes.


Well you need to have been "on this planet" a little longer,
maybe 73+ . There was such back when I was a kid. It was
MUCH heaver than aluminum foil.
...lew...

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:35:46 GMT, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

daniel peterman wrote:
I have been on this planet 50 years and I have never seen TIN foil.
Aluminum yes.


Well you need to have been "on this planet" a little longer,
maybe 73+ . There was such back when I was a kid. It was
MUCH heaver than aluminum foil.
...lew...
Greetings Lew,
And we still call 'em tin cans. But I can't recall even seeing a tin
plated steel can. However, I do remember some tin, not tinned, cans at
an antique store. And Ball brand canning jars with tin lids. It's
funny, I read posts here and pretty much feel like everybody is about
my age. But then you find out that the ages here vary quite a bit.
Then I meet some of the guys who post here and I think, gee, they're
OLD. Then I happen to glance in a mirror and say to myself: gee I'm
OLD TOO.
Eric

Tin Foil, Al foil (some is very thick and some very thin and quilted) brass foil, SS foil, Ti Foil.
Tin foil was used on some pie cabinets... Easy to punch.
Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member


Eric R Snow wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:35:46 GMT, Lew Hartswick
wrote:


daniel peterman wrote:

I have been on this planet 50 years and I have never seen TIN foil.
Aluminum yes.


Well you need to have been "on this planet" a little longer,
maybe 73+ . There was such back when I was a kid. It was
MUCH heaver than aluminum foil.
...lew...

Greetings Lew,
And we still call 'em tin cans. But I can't recall even seeing a tin
plated steel can. However, I do remember some tin, not tinned, cans at
an antique store. And Ball brand canning jars with tin lids. It's
funny, I read posts here and pretty much feel like everybody is about
my age. But then you find out that the ages here vary quite a bit.
Then I meet some of the guys who post here and I think, gee, they're
OLD. Then I happen to glance in a mirror and say to myself: gee I'm
OLD TOO.
Eric

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Eric R Snow" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:35:46 GMT, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

daniel peterman wrote:
I have been on this planet 50 years and I have never seen TIN foil.
Aluminum yes.


Well you need to have been "on this planet" a little longer,
maybe 73+ . There was such back when I was a kid. It was
MUCH heaver than aluminum foil.
...lew...
Greetings Lew,
And we still call 'em tin cans. But I can't recall even seeing a tin
plated steel can. However, I do remember some tin, not tinned, cans at
an antique store. And Ball brand canning jars with tin lids. It's
funny, I read posts here and pretty much feel like everybody is about
my age. But then you find out that the ages here vary quite a bit.
Then I meet some of the guys who post here and I think, gee, they're
OLD. Then I happen to glance in a mirror and say to myself: gee I'm
OLD TOO.
Eric

The tin plating was primarily on the inside, Eric, frequently covered by a
coating such as Tung oil. [Coca Cola used to use Tung oil and tinned steel
cans as did most beer canners.]

Eric R Snow wrote:

Greetings Lew,
And we still call 'em tin cans. But I can't recall even seeing a tin
plated steel can. However, I do remember some tin, not tinned, cans at
an antique store.

Then I happen to glance in a mirror and say to myself: gee I'm
OLD TOO.
Eric

I can remember a college prof saying that there was more RF power in
one plant making tin coated steel for cans than all the broadcasting
stations in the U.S.


Dan

It's amazing what big money can do. Take the case of Phil Cooney -

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ilip_A._Cooney

one of Bush's past insiders.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ichard_Lindzen

Be careful what you read and believe!.

On 17 Apr 2006 21:57:09 -0700, "Gus" wrote:


Joseph Gwinn wrote:
This is one zinger of an article.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

The author, Richard Lindzen, is Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
Science at MIT.

Joe Gwinn


WSJ 12 April 2006, page A14.

This reminds me of the intimidation that scientists run into in other
areas such as Intelligent Design or even in any criticism of Darwinism.
You'd better toe the line, or else. The common denominator seems to be
that the liberal side doesn't want an opposing view presented. Not very
tolerant.
GW

What's Next wrote:
It's amazing what big money can do. Take the case of Phil Cooney -

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ilip_A._Cooney

one of Bush's past insiders.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ichard_Lindzen

Be careful what you read and believe!.

Who can argue with that?