Video Asylum

"The proper term should be 'climate intensification'." Well ya learn something new...

208.58.2.83

clarkjohnsen

In Reply to: RE: HDMI or component video cables for HD cable box to HD TV? posted by Winston Smith on April 30, 2008 at 15:26:15

...every day, they say. Now it's not even "climate change" (as I've been instructed several times to say, by believers), but "climate intensification". OK... whatever...

Or as the great Welsh sailor/writer Tristan Jones used to say, in mock agreement, "Aye, even the bloody seas are rougher now."

Or as in a Boston Globe front page headline. "The real name of Katrina is global warming". So cocksure of themselves! Alas the predicted hurricane extravaganza never materialized, but that fact never hit the headlines.

Why is that?

clark

Follow Ups:

Hopefully, you'll be reincarnated as a polar bear... - Winston Smith 23:17:26 05/02/08 (1)
so you can tell us all how things are just fine up there in the arctic!

Enough silliness. I agree with you the media overstates and sensationalizes everything, and it is nauseating. However, 'Scientific American' is not what I would call an alarmist or sensationalizing publication, and as a long time subscriber I can tell you that in this very area they are concerned that good science is being swept aside for profits by greedy old men who don't care about anything than their own immediate gratification, regardless of the consequences to others or the world around them. (Unless, of course, you think you're smarter than the internationally recognized climatological experts and editorial board of THAT publication, too!)

Why don't we talk about video and try to 'help' one another, hmmm? Let's leave the 'politics of science' to another forum....
- "Good science is being swept aside for profits by greedy old men." LOL! - clarkjohnsen 08:01:12 05/03/08 (0)
  You keep coming on with that stuff, and you get a reply.
  
  "Good science" is being practiced as well by the "skeptics". Why is it that skepticism is highly regarded as healthy, as a rule, but not in the area of "anthropogenic global warming"? Why is it that here, skepticism is tantamount to "holocaust denial"? (I refer you to Ellen Goodman, Harvard '63, in the Boston Globe.) If God and science were really on your side, what would be the need for accusations and demagoguery?
  
  As for "greedy old men", perhaps you don't realize that shareholder participation in American corporations is nearly 50% of the population, which includes widows, women and young children.
  
  By the way, thirty years ago I caught Scientific American telling lies about digital audio, in a blatant promotional effort; I wrote them, and the editor just blustered back. The same magazine has also served as a mouthpiece for Thomas Edison and numerous others. Your trust is misplaced.
  
  clark

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable