[at-l] Knowing that it's there.. and atml

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Robert wrote:
>Note:  This goes on forever and is a rebuttal to Jim Owen's lies about me 
>more than anything else. It really is more for him, but I feel the need to 
>post the truth here since he posted his lies here. You really don't have to 
>read it all if you don't want to. ---Robert
>

Let's start at the beginning -
1/ I have no reason to lie about you - and even if I did, it would be too 
damn much trouble.
2/ If I were gonna lie about you I wouldn't do it on at-l.  I don't crap in 
my own living room.

>
>Let's begin where you do. The "bribe". That was a bit of insinuation on my 
>part that was meant more as humor than anything else.

The word "bribe" has only negative connotations.  There is no humor in it.

>However, the insinuation was not that he paid them off, but rather that he 
>holds the purse strings. Government agencies are quite often given budget 
>increases based on their conforming to a particular administrations 
>"beliefs". Do you really believe that this does not go on?

I've worked for da gubmint for 40+ years.  I know the budget process 
intimately.  And that view has very little validity.  I did NOT say "no 
validity" - but the implications of what you're saying are not only 
unethical, but illegal, immoral and (probably) fattening.

In any case - if your premise were true, there would have been less money - 
not more.  Your logic is reversed.

Related - Robert wrote and someone else implied:
>he holds the purse strings.

No - Congress holds the purse strings - and frankly, neither the 
Administration nor Congress is legally required to give anything to any 
environmental cause, organization or function.  There is no Constitutional 
requirement - and, in fact, no Constitutional power or authorization for the 
Feds to support any such activity.  There is also little gratitude from the 
environmental movement for the money that is funneled into their causes.  
You might want to hope and/or pray (whichever suits you) that nobody 
challenges the Constitutional basis for TEA-21.

>On one hand, it could be looked at as a bribe. On the other hand, it could 
>be looked as blackmail. Either way, to insinuate that it doesn't happen or 
>that Dubya is too smart for that is silly.

You can't bribe those who hate and vilify you - and you can't blackmail 
those whose actions/words you don't control.  Both words are inoperative in 
this context.

>The next part of your post is confusing to say the least. You note Jim 
>Hansen & Co. as supporting what you say and then discredit Jim Hansen by 
>the end of the statement. Make up your mind. Is he worth listening to or 
>not, or do you only listen to him when he matches up with your opinions?
>

Jim Hansen is the "Father of Global Warming" - the fact that his name is 
listed as a Principal Investigator on scientific reports that partially 
refute his own theories is certainly of interest in any discussion re: 
climate change.  I neither credited him nor discredited him in any regard.  
I stated facts - not personal or professional judgments.

>As far as Kyoto goes, you brought it up not me. Feel free to say whatever 
>you want about it. Just stop saying it as though it rebuts something I said 
>about it.

You said:
>And thankfully they ignored him when he told the other 7 that their silly 
>mandatory pollution limits would "wreck" the economies of their respective 
>countries. They all plan to continue their efforts to curtail emissions.
>

That's Kyoto.

>Oh, and for the record, I have read the Kyoto protocol, many articles on 
>both sides of it, and more than my fair share of random comments in posts 
>like yours. You were so quick to jump on my comment about the world 
>governments telling Bush they would continue to attempt to curtail the 
>emissions that you missed the point of what I was saying. The other 
>countries are going to keep trying to curtail emissions.

Good on you for reading.

But "trying to curtail emissions" by using proven ineffective methods is 
just another form of insanity.  "Trying to curtail emissions" by using 
methods that will destroy an economy (as in France or Britain) that's 
already teetering on the edge of oblivion is sheer stupidity.

>As for the rest of the paragraph, you skimmed over the fact that I was 
>actually focusing on. Bush admitted he was wrong about humans contributing 
>to global warming. Let that sink in. He actually admitted he was wrong. 
>Thank God for small favors.

I didn't miss that - I just didn't think it necessary to comment any more 
than others might think it necessary to comment about Clinton's admission of 
perjury re: Monica.

>As for your other horribly misleading statement about percentages and those 
>countries you mentioned, you left out the fact that although they are 
>estimated to be responsible for 48% of the CO2 that the US is responsible 
>for 25% based on low estimates and over 35% by high estimates all by its 
>lonesome.

Nope - there's no evidence to support your "high estimate" and even the low 
estimate is just that - an estimate.  There are no accurate measurements - 
yet.  The A-train is coming.  But you don't know about that, do you?  Ask me 
about it sometime.

>Did you not read the part where it said that the 48% includes the US or did 
>you leave that out on purpose.

Uh - that's what I said.  This is your misunderstanding - not mine.

>I wonder if you noticed that China is second only to the US in greenhouse 
>gas emissions and yet they have a population four times the size of the US. 
>Basically the US makes a huge difference in any group they become a part of 
>in regards to emissions.
>

Yes - and China and India are growing - or hadn't you noticed?  Their 
emissions have become a major problem in a number of ways - and that's why 
it's a lot more important to have an agreement with them than to get tangled 
up in Kyoto.

>
>On to the next point. Don't start insinuating that I edited that list of 
>his "accomplishments". It was a list which I copied in its entirety. 
>Possibly the list was not complete on the site,

OK - I'll buy that.  The original list that they came from was a lot longer. 
  Mea culpa.

>I went through quite a few, though and found more and more information 
>supporting each one. I will use the snowmobiles as an example. I had not 
>checked that one out, but I have now. Below is the post from NRDC that I 
>will use as a starting point.
>

I said it before - if you're using NRDC as a source, then your information 
is heavily biased and probably wrong.  Several years ago there was a 
Loooooong discussion on another list.  Those posts have apparently been 
deleted, and I'm not gonna do the research all over again, but the bottom 
line was that your NRDC article lies like a rug.  The Park Superintendant 
made heroic efforts to prove the NRDC contentions - and failed.  He even 
stacked the EIS.  And he buried the biologists report.  But he couldn't bury 
the interview she gave to the West Yellowstone newspaper.  I had a copy of 
that newpaper, but it disappeared some time ago.  The reports from the 
efforts to produce evidence of pollution were, at one point, buried deep on 
NPS sites. They proved the invalidity of the NRDC statements.  The argument 
on TA eventually reduced to just that snowmobiles were too noisy - 
discounting the fact, of course, that the newer machines that had already 
been mandated, were an order of magnitude quieter.  Those who claimed they 
were too noisy were also those who were least likely to ever be in 
Yellowstone in winter - and, therefore, they would never have to listen to 
the machines anyway.  Snowmobiles aren't used anywhere in summer. <G>

>From the NRDC article -
>the plan it proposed last November calls for allowing up to 35 percent more 
>of the vehicles into the parks.

That's an oversimplification - memory says there were allowances for 35% 
more snowmobiles from ONE of the several entrances.  Not 35% overall.  Nor 
does your article mention the new requirement that all private snowmobiles 
go in with "guides."

>From the NRDC article -
>Bush officials say an increase in off-road traffic is justified because new 
>machines will be cleaner and quieter.

We went through this a couple years ago - the EIS was based solely on the 
effects of 2-cycle engines even though they were being phased out.  The new 
requirement is for 4-cycle engines which are quieter, more efficient and 
produce less emissions by more than an order or magnitude.

Nor did ANYONE increase "off-road" traffic.  In fact, the new regs specify 
that all snowmobile traffic be restricted to the roads.

>From the NRDC article -
>"All of the scientific studies -- including the Bush administration's own 
>analysis -- say that snowmobiles endanger public health, worsen air quality 
>and threaten wildlife.

We discussed that above - it's just a lie.

>Now you may say that you have evidence that this is not true. I have yet to 
>find any mention of it anywhere on the web nor do you provide any links to 
>where the information can be found. I do have several sites that back the 
>statements above. You can find them at:
>
>www.greateryellowstone.org
>www.wilderness.org
>www.boston.com
>www.chicagotribune.com

Uh huh - two of them are major news organizations and two are environmental 
organizations that backed banning the snowmobiles regardless of what any 
study said.  In some ways, Greater Yellowstone is pretty reasonable - but 
not always.

>I don't particularly care to be called a liar especially by someone who is. 
>Next time you choose to mouth off, get your facts straight or make your 
>fabrications more believable and less open to being proved ridiculous.
>

I did NOT call you a liar.  If I were gonna call you a liar, there would be 
no question about what I was doing.  I don't waltz around the barn with that 
kind of thing.  As a small example, this is what I posted on another list at 
one time to someone who was lying -

>You're a liar, XXXX - and an obvious liar, at that.
>I've known some wonderfully inventive and dedicated
>liars - even some intentionally "evil" ones.  But
>you're so pathetically inept at it that you give the
>word "liar" a bad name.

I blanked out the name, but you'll get the idea. I'll send you the link that 
came from - privately.
That's how "I" call someone a liar.  You haven't gotten close to that yet.

>By the way, I love how you blow off Train's opinion, and yet you take your 
>own so seriously. Now, that's a laugh! 
>ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

I didn't blow it off - I said:
>Everyone's got their opinion.  Doesn't mean they're right or that they know
what they're talking about.

I'll stick with that.  He has a right to his opinion just as you have.  But 
I don't have to accept either his opinion or yours.

Finally -
>Robert wrote:
> >Reading this just made me cry. The idea that people still think Bush is
> >doing a good job (in anything) amazes me.

Your blanket condemnation of Bush is both inaccurate and disappointing.  It 
indicates a mindset that fails to recognize the validity of any reality that 
doesn't conform to preconceived notions or beliefs.  You have never shown 
that mindset before. Therefore the statement:

>Oh, Robert - I thought better of you than this.

If you have specific reasons for condemnation, it's one thing - but anytime 
one does the "blanket condemnation" route - they're wrong right from the 
git-go.

Mmmm - I'm not gonna have time to answer the other posts on this subject, so 
- the 30% number was not "mine" - it came from a short article in the 
Washington Post.  Look it up.

Walk softly,
Jim