I had no idea that when I wrote you that private e-mail, you would publish it here. Had I known that it was destined for public viewing, I would have written it differently.

Presuming that a one-on-one e-mail would remain so was my error, and I regret it. I am taking steps to make sure that it does not happen again.

Oliver, if you happen to be reading these comments, please be aware that frame e-mailed me privately about this matter, then published my above response without my knowledge or consent. I don’t know what ethical standard you hold to in such matters. I realize that frame was under no legal obligation to not publish it, but I’ve always held people who hold no higher standard than the letter of the law in a great deal of contempt.

This is not a formal complaint, Oliver, nor a request for action, but merely a professional courtesy notice, from one blogger to another: frame has acted in what I consider a thoroughly unethical manner, and used your forum to propagate it. Take whatever action — or no action — as you see appropriate. I have already done what I believe is appropriate.

J.

… and he claims to own the ball, when in fact, it’s school property.

Ed

From: “Jay Tea”
>To: “Frame One”
>Subject: RE: You never came back …
>Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:29:26 -0500
>
>First reply: Huh?
>
>Second reply: Oh, that tiff over at Ollie’s site? I didn’t care that much
>about the issue, and nobody ever touched on the main point: it’s aimed at
>crippling the West, and gives the developing nations a free ride.
>
>Third reply: considering how many times we’ve crossed swords, I think it’s
>quite notable that this is the first time you’ve felt so vindicated, that
>you had to gloat in private e-mail. Maybe I shoulda done that all the times
>I crushed you…
>
>Fourth reply: I got better things to do than deal with you. You’re cutting
>into my higher priorities. For one, I got this itch on my leg that needs
>scratching. Next, there’s some drying paint that is far more fascinating
>than you.
>
>I think I’ll stick with #4.
>
>J.
>
>

http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/globalwarming.html

I’m going to assume you know how to use google, right? If you’re so interested there’s a wealth of information out there. All you have to do is look for it.

“Recent warming can be largely attributed to human causation. More strongly than ever, the IPCC states in its 2001 assessment, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

Check out the information here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-consensus-vs-certainty.html

The above quote comes from the link on that page: “What We Do Know about Climate Change”

I know this may sound incredibly naive, but has our beloved planet not been in a cycle of warming since the last ice age ?

Were we to have adopted Kyoto, and met the emissions regulations in re. greenhouse gases, what was the corresponding target goal of reduced warming for the same time period?

This is a topic that I am woefully under-informed on, so maybe I can be educated.

“Assessments generally suggest that the Earth s climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor. A National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated,  Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

It seems that the scientists are not quite yet ready to state definitively that this is all a result of us horrible humans. When one looks at the time frames many of these studies are based on, in comparison to the amount of time this little planet has been in existence, methinks it is reasonable to question how big of a role humans play in comparison to the cyclic nature of mother nature. Just my two cents …

You will of course write whatever you want (interminably) but I just noted that in an everyday disagreement, you tend to become extremely harsh and personal – frequently. Its like you are at war and nobody else is. Sometimes, IMO, you can make a decent point but invariably it comes with the name calling and with about 10 excess paragraphs. Get mad if you wish – its an honest observation.

Dugger

What do you know about it? Jay Tea presented flat out wrong information here. Just flat out wrong. I corrected him but not before JD jumped in with his prediction that I would come back with a dishonest response. You guys always come back with “Name calling doesn’t make your case any stronger.” Well in your books neither, apparently, does telling the truth and supporting it with facts. That’s exactly what I asked Jay to do and he failed. Indeed, he revealed the arrogance of his assuptions by repeating his assertions twice in this thread without any sourcing, without any links, in an argument with Quaker. So here you have someone on this thread repeating false information and JD coming to gloat along with him in absolutle certainty that they were right and that I would choose dishonesty as a response. When I come back with the actual facts — taken by the way from the very study that Jay misread and misunderstood — JD switches the subject without addressing my correction and Jay Tea dissapears entirely. Then JD starts accusing me of ignorning his oh so relevant point that the Senate voted unanimously against Kyoto. As far as I can tell that’s the first actual hard fact that anyone on the right has presented in this thread.

Jay Tea gives you wrong information, JD gloats, they’re both flat out wrong and somehow I’m at fault for calling them idiots. They are idiots dugger. And I never get tired of schooling your sorry asses with the facts.

Did you even follow the links, JD? Did you ever bother to check the facts behind his assertion? You jumped in with your generalization without bothering to investigate any of Jay’s claims yourself. What did you contribute to the discuss with your little point? What did you hope to accomplish? You had nothing constructive to add. You did nothing to further anyone’s understanding of the subject at hand. No, you see I did that. I asked Jay to back up his assertion, I looked into the facts he presented. I found out that he had misrepresented the information he linked to. Did I call him any names in that post? No. It was only when I went back to read your gloating posts that I decided to call you all what you are: idiots. Jay is an idiot who regurgitates whatever crap comes his way that he thinks will advance his small, petty view of the world. You’re an idiot who hasn’t even got the balls to come out with a stand on anything, instead you try to snipe from the sides with idiotic questions and irrelevant assertions until someone turns your way. Then it’s all “I never said that, I never supported that, you’re putting words in my mouth, you’re calling me names.” What were you implying I was when you suggested that I was going to come back with an attack on Jay’s source? We’re you suggesting I’m dishonest in my dealings here? Of course you were but you haven’t got the balls to come out and say it, not even as an anonymous poster on a blog. You did the same thing in the recent thread on torture. You asked a series of questions that I answered. When I asked you a question did you answer it? No. You responded with your usual denial that you ever took a stand on anything and that I was putting words in your mouth. Again you offered nothing constructive to the discussion, you never bothered to research anything yourself or bring your opinion out into public view. Instead you try to hide behind slanted questions as if your practicing the Socratic method or something, a humble truth seeker hoping to objectively analyze the facts as people bring them to you. Jay Tea presented as fact an assertion in this thread that was totally wrong. Do you condemn him? Do you direct any questions to him? No. Because you’re a hack like him. Nothing to offer, nothing to add.