Global Warming

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 29 Nov 2006 12:11:18
From: The_Professor
Subject: Global Warming

I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid with
respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an issue
of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
they talk about what science has to say:

The Ecological Society of America

For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org

ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
The Certainty of Global Climate Change

In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
President of the Ecological Society of America,
the nation's premier scientific society of
ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
consensus on the facts and effects of climate
change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
accurate."

The case currently before the Supreme Court was
brought by a group of states, cities, and
nonprofits that argued that, under the Clean Air
Act (CAA), carbon dioxide is a pollutant and
contributor to climate change and as such, the
EPA must regulate carbon dioxide emissions. EPA
argues, however, that it does not have the
authority to regulate carbon dioxide and even if
it had, the agency would not regulate carbon
dioxide due in part to scientific uncertainty.
The court's decision will determine whether the
CAA mandates that EPA regulate carbon dioxide,
which may be a watershed decision for US action regarding climate
change.

The CAA states that absolute scientific certainty
is not necessary for regulation of a pollutant.
Instead, the pollutant must "reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare." [Section 202(a)(1)] In arguing that
carbon dioxide cannot reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare due to
scientific uncertainty, EPA chose only the points
highlighting the absence of certainty from the
2001 National Research Council Report on climate
change, but disregarded a general scientific
consensus that climate change is indeed
occurring. While certain facets of climate are
less certain than others, current scientific
understanding verifies and supports the following statements:

* The physics of the greenhouse effect are well
understood by scientists. Certain atmospheric
gases (including carbon dioxide) absorb
radiation, causing a warming effect, and that
greater concentrations of these gases will lead
to an increase in surface temperatures.1
* It is certain that human activities have
increased the concentrations of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere above levels in the geologically
recent historical record, which has led to the
recent global climate change. Carbon dioxide
levels remained constant from the period
1000-1750, then increased more than 25% in the
last 150 years.1,2 This had caused average global
surface temperatures to rise approximately 0.6=BAF;
global average sea level to rise 0.1-0.2 meters;
and ice extent in the Arctic to decrease by about 40%.2, 3

* It is virtually certain that greenhouse gas
emissions, continued at the current rate, will
cause additional warming. At the current
emissions rate, carbon dioxide levels will double
by 2100, leading to a likely temperature increase of 2.7-10.4=BAF. 2, 3
* Climate change will increase threats to human
health, especially in developing countries and
lower income populations. Further increases in
surface and ocean temperatures will cause an
increase in drought, flood, and hurricane
intensities, disrupt agricultural production, and
expand the range of disease vectors. 2, 3
* The ecological effects of climate change are
already observable and have been well-documented.
Ecosystem disruptions including fire, drought,
invasion of species, habitat shifts and coral
bleaching events result in reduced biodiversity,
increased extinction risk, and loss of ecosystem services. 2, 3
* The exact timing and magnitude of climate
change depend on climate inertia and future
emission rates. The elevated greenhouse gases
currently in the atmosphere will continue to
change the climate for an unknown period, even if
all emissions are capped immediately. However,
capping carbon dioxide emissions will
significantly increase the timing of climate stabilization.2,4
* It is likely that significant, intense, and
abrupt events caused by climate change (such as
local heat waves, intense droughts, or floods)
will occur. The absence of a complete
understanding of certain global processes may
prevent predictions of events, including
thermohaline circulation reduction, significant
losses to Antarctic ice sheet, and altered Asian monsoons. 2, 3

Although current scientific understanding, by
definition, constantly changes, these statements
represent the latest information and are
supported by a wide group of climate scientists.
Many other scientific bodies, including the
American Geophysical Union (AGU), the Geological
Society of America (GSA), and the joint National
Academies of Science (NAS), have issued similar statements:

AGU: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml;
GSA: http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm;
NAS: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Said Covich, "Communication and widespread
awareness of climate change information remains
essential not only to conservation of natural
resources, but also to the general well-being of
the nation. The recognition of these facts by the
Court in Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
will provide significant support to the certainty
of climate change that the administration cannot ignore."

The Ecological Society of America (ESA) is a
scientific, non-profit, 9500-member organization
founded in 1915. Through ESA reports, journals,
membership research, and expert testimony to
Congress, ESA seeks to promote the responsible
application of ecological data and principles to
the solution of environmental problems. ESA
publishes four scientific, peer-reviewed
journals: Ecology, Ecological Applications,
Ecological Monographs, and Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment. For more information about the Society visit
www.esa.org.

1 Energy Information Administration. (2004).
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy.
Retrieved October 10, 2006,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

2 International Panel on Climate Change. (2001)
Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. October
16, 2006. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/index.htm

3 National Assessment Synthesis Team, US Global
Change Research Program. (2000) Climate Change
Impacts on the United States. October 18, 2006.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewfindings.htm

4 Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
National Research Council. (2001) Climate Change
Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.
October 18, 2006. http://newton.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/10139.pdf

Date: 01 Dec 2006 09:19:54
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Global Warming

the Moderator wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1164831078.220270.177910@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
> * It is certain that human activities have
> increased the concentrations of carbon dioxide in
> the atmosphere above levels in the geologically
> recent historical record, which has led to the
> recent global climate change. Carbon dioxide
> levels remained constant from the period
> 1000-1750, then increased more than 25% in the
> last 150 years.1,2 This had caused average global
> surface temperatures to rise approximately 0.6=BAF;
> global average sea level to rise 0.1-0.2 meters;
> and ice extent in the Arctic to decrease by about 40%.2, 3
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that 0.6 degrees over 150 years is incredibly
> stable?

No.

It's always something. We're running out of oil. The Ozone is
depleted. Spotted Owls. Old(dying) growth timber.
Blah..blah..blah...blah.

-Greg

Date: 30 Nov 2006 11:34:37
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Another bit of pop culture fantasy.

With respect to the case in question. No one is arguing that human
caused global warming isn't occurring. Even judges like Alito and
Roberts don't question that. They question whether the proposed
enforcement of standards would have any effect on the phenomenon.

My take on the people who "don't like" "global warming" is that the
represent an older view that the earth and it's resources are
unlimited, and we can do whatever. We all now know that this is not
true, and we are creating the environment of the future..in all
aspect...with what we do now. Our inductrialization is not necessarily
leaving more for futire generations, in many ways it is leaving less.

Older types of traditionalist thinking, and I am somewhat of a
traditionalist, FWIW, but recognize the error of this particular sort
of thinking, include the idea of the unlimited environment, which is
wrong. The issue is not certainty in this case, it is RISK. Those who
are the most well informed about the issue, across a broad spectrum of
ideologies, nationalities and cultural traditions, all see the risk as
being quite great. Not to the AL Gore fiction, mind you, which is
absurd alarmism, but just a matter of societal responsibility.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 09:04:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>> Howard Brazee wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
> >>>>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
> >>>>>> state things have gone too far.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
> >>>>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Joe
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
> >>>> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
> >>>> political spectrum.
> >>>
> >>> I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
> >>> claims. The fact is that Exxon/Mobil's behavior re climate change is
> >>> about the same as Philip Morris' re tobacco and cancer/heart
> >>> disease/addiction, etc. Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent
> >>> and dispassionate debate, but to obstruct and obfuscate in the defense
> >>> of their profits and stock price. Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
> >>> research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.
> >>>
> >> Now we are getting to the root cause of the John B. problem: reading
> >> comprehension.
> >>
> >> First off this issue raised was not global warming per se, rather it was
> >> the behavior of a Senior Government officials, threatening a private
> >> entity based on that governments "belief". The mullah syndrome.
> >
> > Gosh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were the arbiter of what is
> > open for discussion and what isn't. Obviously my comments were out of
> > order and, as per the rules of Usent debate, you didn't respond to
> > them. My mistake.
> >
> > I hope I'm not violating the rules again if I point out the Sens.
> > Rockefeller and Snowe are not seniot government officials. They're
> > senators. There's a difference.
> >
> >> The letter was extremely threatening,and a student u\of diplomacy should
> >> certainly recognize that language and the value / connotation of words
> >> is impacted by the power inherit or obtainable by the using entity.
> >> Compare the language used by the US, China and Iran respectively in
> >> terms of bellicosity and their actual strength and capability to make
> >> war. It is inversely proportional. (look it up)
> >
> > God forbid I would have nothing better to do than to argue with you
> > about the relative bellicosity of the senators' letter.
> >> Joe
> >
> Johnny,
>
> With the foregoing, you have destroyed your last bit of credibility.

Oh my God, are you serious? I have no credibility left? I'm devastated!
Whatever will I do? Tell me, O Wise One, is there any way I can regain
your trust? It means everything to me.

>
> You missed the fact that this sub thread dealt with a specific issue and
> you elected to revert a discussion of your religious belief set. Of
> course in some circles that is considered good debating tactics. In
> others it is a sign of a room temperature IQ.
>
> I must have missed the class where they taught that the legislative
> branch was not part of the government. Or maybe there is a narrow
> definition that confines the concept of government to the executive
> branch. Could be I guess.
>
> Joe

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:18:54
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
> >>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
> >>>> state things have gone too far.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
> >>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
> >> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
> >> political spectrum.
> >
> >
> > I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
> > claims. The fact is that Exxon/Mobil's behavior re climate change is
> > about the same as Philip Morris' re tobacco and cancer/heart
> > disease/addiction, etc. Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent
> > and dispassionate debate, but to obstruct and obfuscate in the defense
> > of their profits and stock price. Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
> > research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.
> >
> Now we are getting to the root cause of the John B. problem: reading
> comprehension.
>
> First off this issue raised was not global warming per se, rather it was
> the behavior of a Senior Government officials, threatening a private
> entity based on that governments "belief". The mullah syndrome.

Gosh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were the arbiter of what is
open for discussion and what isn't. Obviously my comments were out of
order and, as per the rules of Usent debate, you didn't respond to
them. My mistake.

I hope I'm not violating the rules again if I point out the Sens.
Rockefeller and Snowe are not seniot government officials. They're
senators. There's a difference.

>
> The letter was extremely threatening,and a student u\of diplomacy should
> certainly recognize that language and the value / connotation of words
> is impacted by the power inherit or obtainable by the using entity.
> Compare the language used by the US, China and Iran respectively in
> terms of bellicosity and their actual strength and capability to make
> war. It is inversely proportional. (look it up)

God forbid I would have nothing better to do than to argue with you
about the relative bellicosity of the senators' letter.
>
> Joe

Date: 06 Dec 2006 16:35:52
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>>>>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>>>>>> state things have gone too far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>>>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>>> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
>>>> political spectrum.
>>>
>>> I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
>>> claims. The fact is that Exxon/Mobil's behavior re climate change is
>>> about the same as Philip Morris' re tobacco and cancer/heart
>>> disease/addiction, etc. Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent
>>> and dispassionate debate, but to obstruct and obfuscate in the defense
>>> of their profits and stock price. Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
>>> research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.
>>>
>> Now we are getting to the root cause of the John B. problem: reading
>> comprehension.
>>
>> First off this issue raised was not global warming per se, rather it was
>> the behavior of a Senior Government officials, threatening a private
>> entity based on that governments "belief". The mullah syndrome.
>
> Gosh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were the arbiter of what is
> open for discussion and what isn't. Obviously my comments were out of
> order and, as per the rules of Usent debate, you didn't respond to
> them. My mistake.
>
> I hope I'm not violating the rules again if I point out the Sens.
> Rockefeller and Snowe are not seniot government officials. They're
> senators. There's a difference.
>
>> The letter was extremely threatening,and a student u\of diplomacy should
>> certainly recognize that language and the value / connotation of words
>> is impacted by the power inherit or obtainable by the using entity.
>> Compare the language used by the US, China and Iran respectively in
>> terms of bellicosity and their actual strength and capability to make
>> war. It is inversely proportional. (look it up)
>
> God forbid I would have nothing better to do than to argue with you
> about the relative bellicosity of the senators' letter.
>> Joe
>
Johnny,

With the foregoing, you have destroyed your last bit of credibility.

You missed the fact that this sub thread dealt with a specific issue and
you elected to revert a discussion of your religious belief set. Of
course in some circles that is considered good debating tactics. In
others it is a sign of a room temperature IQ.

I must have missed the class where they taught that the legislative
branch was not part of the government. Or maybe there is a narrow
definition that confines the concept of government to the executive
branch. Could be I guess.

Joe

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:45:34
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165359115.474560.211530@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as
> >> >> fact
> >> >> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of
> >> >> the
> >> >> state things have gone too far.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
> >> >> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
> >> >>
> >> >> Joe
> >> >>
> >> >More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
> >>
> >> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
> >> political spectrum.
> >
> >
> > I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
> > claims.
>
> Actually it is.
>
> >Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent and dispassionate debate,
> >but to obstruct and obfuscate
>
> This is EXACTLY what Rockerfeller and Snowe are doing.

Why would they do that? They don't own an oil company.

>
> . Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
> > research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.
> >
> All research is paid for by somebody.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:43:29
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
> >> news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> >>>
> >>> bill-o wrote:
> >>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
> >>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
> >>>>
> >>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
> >>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
> >>> state things have gone too far.
> >>>
> >>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
> >>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
> >>>
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
> >>
> > Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
> > moderate. Certainly not a liberal.
>
> Considered a moderate by who? Conservatives do not consider Ms. Snowe a
> moderate we consider her a liberal. Liberal Republican, Democrat, they
> are all liberal.

If Olympia Snowe is a liberal, then what is Hillary Clinton?

Date: 06 Dec 2006 10:17:05
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165373009.246757.102490@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> bill-o wrote:
>> >>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>> >>>>
>> >>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as
>> >>> fact
>> >>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of
>> >>> the
>> >>> state things have gone too far.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>> >>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>> >>>
>> >>> Joe
>> >>>
>> >> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>> >>
>> > Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
>> > moderate. Certainly not a liberal.
>>
>> Considered a moderate by who? Conservatives do not consider Ms. Snowe a
>> moderate we consider her a liberal. Liberal Republican, Democrat, they
>> are all liberal.
>
> If Olympia Snowe is a liberal, then what is Hillary Clinton?
>
That's a loaded question. :-)

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:49:42
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
>>>>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>>>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>>>>> state things have gone too far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>>>
>>> Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
>>> moderate. Certainly not a liberal.
>> Considered a moderate by who? Conservatives do not consider Ms. Snowe a
>> moderate we consider her a liberal. Liberal Republican, Democrat, they
>> are all liberal.
>
> If Olympia Snowe is a liberal, then what is Hillary Clinton?
>

She "aint no Tammy Wynette standing by my man!"

She aint baking cookies. Nobody would eat them.

God bless America and save us from Hillary Rodham (Clinton).

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:51:55
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
> >> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
> >> state things have gone too far.
> >>
> >> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
> >> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>
> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
> political spectrum.

I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
claims. The fact is that Exxon/Mobil's behavior re climate change is
about the same as Philip Morris' re tobacco and cancer/heart
disease/addiction, etc. Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent
and dispassionate debate, but to obstruct and obfuscate in the defense
of their profits and stock price. Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 03:01:30
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

John B. wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>>>> state things have gone too far.
>>>>
>>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
>> political spectrum.
>
>
> I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
> claims. The fact is that Exxon/Mobil's behavior re climate change is
> about the same as Philip Morris' re tobacco and cancer/heart
> disease/addiction, etc. Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent
> and dispassionate debate, but to obstruct and obfuscate in the defense
> of their profits and stock price. Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
> research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.
>
Now we are getting to the root cause of the John B. problem: reading
comprehension.

First off this issue raised was not global warming per se, rather it was
the behavior of a Senior Government officials, threatening a private
entity based on that governments "belief". The mullah syndrome.

The letter was extremely threatening,and a student u\of diplomacy should
certainly recognize that language and the value / connotation of words
is impacted by the power inherit or obtainable by the using entity.
Compare the language used by the US, China and Iran respectively in
terms of bellicosity and their actual strength and capability to make
war. It is inversely proportional. (look it up)

Joe

Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:20:37
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Global Warming

I never knew that Al Gore's movie was wall to wall peer reviewed research.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165359115.474560.211530@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as
>> >> fact
>> >> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of
>> >> the
>> >> state things have gone too far.
>> >>
>> >> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>> >> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>> >>
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>> >More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>
>> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
>> political spectrum.
>
>
> I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
> claims. The fact is that Exxon/Mobil's behavior re climate change is
> about the same as Philip Morris' re tobacco and cancer/heart
> disease/addiction, etc. Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent
> and dispassionate debate, but to obstruct and obfuscate in the defense
> of their profits and stock price. Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
> research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.
>

Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:10:24
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165359115.474560.211530@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as
>> >> fact
>> >> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of
>> >> the
>> >> state things have gone too far.
>> >>
>> >> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>> >> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>> >>
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>> >More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>
>> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
>> political spectrum.
>
>
> I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
> claims.

Actually it is.

>Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent and dispassionate debate,
>but to obstruct and obfuscate

This is EXACTLY what Rockerfeller and Snowe are doing.

. Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
> research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.
>
All research is paid for by somebody.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:20:59
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:10:24 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1165359115.474560.211530@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as
>>> >> fact
>>> >> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of
>>> >> the
>>> >> state things have gone too far.
>>> >>
>>> >> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>> >> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>> >>
>>> >> Joe
>>> >>
>>> >More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>>
>>> Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
>>> political spectrum.
>>
>>
>> I read their letter and it's not as belligerent as the Wall St. Journal
>> claims.
>
>Actually it is.
>
C'mon Mike. Read it with an open mind.
>>Their strategy is not to engage in intelligent and dispassionate debate,
>>but to obstruct and obfuscate
>
>This is EXACTLY what Rockerfeller and Snowe are doing.
>
Then they're both guilty of playing the same game.

>. Exxon/Mobil publicizes "scientific"
>> research that it has bought and paid for and is NOT peer-reviewed.
>>
>All research is paid for by somebody.
>
But research that is slanted either way is wrong. You know that Mobil
isn't going to publish anything that might be harmful to their
business, even if it's true.
bk

Date: 30 Nov 2006 14:54:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30 Nov 2006 11:34:37 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>With respect to the case in question. No one is arguing that human
>caused global warming isn't occurring.

However, there are some people who argue that the human effect is so
small that it makes no appreciable difference one way or the other in
the naturally occurring cycles of climate change.

In any case, the human effect is pure speculation and not a scientific
fact.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 14:50:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30 Nov 2006 11:34:37 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
>
>Another bit of pop culture fantasy.

Exactly what part of this is a fantasy?

Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts

(1) Astronomical Causes

* 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability (
sunspot activity )
* 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit
around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
* 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5� wobble in Earth's orbit
( tilt )
* 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's
elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

(2) Atmospheric Causes

* Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water
vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other
miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
* Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar
ice caps

(3) Tectonic Causes

* Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift)
causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems
that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles,
either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
* Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with
continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

Do you also think that it's a fantasy that in the past the earth has
been warmer than it is now?

Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:32:58
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1164831078.220270.177910@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip >
* It is certain that human activities have
increased the concentrations of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere above levels in the geologically
recent historical record, which has led to the
recent global climate change. Carbon dioxide
levels remained constant from the period
1000-1750, then increased more than 25% in the
last 150 years.1,2 This had caused average global
surface temperatures to rise approximately 0.6�F;
global average sea level to rise 0.1-0.2 meters;
and ice extent in the Arctic to decrease by about 40%.2, 3

Am I the only one who thinks that 0.6 degrees over 150 years is incredibly
stable?

Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:52:41
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:32:58 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>
>"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1164831078.220270.177910@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
><snip>
>* It is certain that human activities have
>increased the concentrations of carbon dioxide in
>the atmosphere above levels in the geologically
>recent historical record, which has led to the
>recent global climate change. Carbon dioxide
>levels remained constant from the period
>1000-1750, then increased more than 25% in the
>last 150 years.1,2 This had caused average global
>surface temperatures to rise approximately 0.6�F;
>global average sea level to rise 0.1-0.2 meters;
>and ice extent in the Arctic to decrease by about 40%.2, 3
>
>Am I the only one who thinks that 0.6 degrees over 150 years is incredibly
>stable?
>

Yes.

Crispin Roche

Date: 30 Nov 2006 07:15:34
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Global Warming

MnMikew wrote:
> >
> > I'm driving a car full of RSGers with the pedal to the metal. We top a
> > hill and there is a semi truck on it's side stretched across the road
> > in front of us.
> >
> > Q. What should I do?
> >
> > Frostback: Maybe you should get off the gas?
> > Lloyd: Or perhaps you should start hitting the brakes?
> > MnMikeW: That ain't a real truck.
> >
> >
> I doubt you even own a car.

Wrong again, Einstein.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/56858916

Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:49:25
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1164899734.193522.47460@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm driving a car full of RSGers with the pedal to the metal. We top a
>> > hill and there is a semi truck on it's side stretched across the road
>> > in front of us.
>> >
>> > Q. What should I do?
>> >
>> > Frostback: Maybe you should get off the gas?
>> > Lloyd: Or perhaps you should start hitting the brakes?
>> > MnMikeW: That ain't a real truck.
>> >
>> >
>> I doubt you even own a car.
>
> Wrong again, Einstein.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/56858916
>
Sure that's not your wifes car?

Date: 30 Nov 2006 10:17:52
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

annika1980 wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
>>> I'm driving a car full of RSGers with the pedal to the metal. We top a
>>> hill and there is a semi truck on it's side stretched across the road
>>> in front of us.
>>>
>>> Q. What should I do?
>>>
>>> Frostback: Maybe you should get off the gas?
>>> Lloyd: Or perhaps you should start hitting the brakes?
>>> MnMikeW: That ain't a real truck.
>>>
>>>
>> I doubt you even own a car.
>
> Wrong again, Einstein.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/56858916
>

You misspelled "DICK".

Date: 30 Nov 2006 15:07:02
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:44:34 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:32:48 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Be serious. Even the hawks in the military are admitting that this
>>can't be won.
>
> The war is already won. Saddam is gone. No matter what happens now,
> the US is ahead of the game.

You're insane.

We wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of
troops, and all we got was a bloody civil war.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:57:55
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:04:20
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2006 12:59:06 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Most people
> >were skeptical of global warming when it was initially brought up,
> >however as time has passed it remains the theory that best explains the
> >facts.
>
> I'm not denying that global warming is happening. That data seems to
> be clear and all but a few researchers have problems with that. The
> debate revolves around why it's happening. In addition, very few
> researchers deny that the greenhouse effect is a factor in global
> warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What some researchers are
> saying is that CO2 emissions have very little effect because you're
> talking about a percentage increase of a factor that is itself only a
> percentage of the total greenhouse effect. Then you have to consider
> that the greenhouse effect is only one of a number of factors that
> effect global temperature. Accordingly, when you talk about CO2
> emissions you're talking about a percent of a percent of a percent.

I rephrase...people were once much more skeptical about the effect of
human generated greenhouse gasses having some effect on temperature.
Now there is very little skepticism on the issue, very few people who
spend their lives investigating the atmosphere (as opposed to some
weather man with at most a B. Sc. in meteorology) doubt that continued
emission of greenhouse gasses at current and predicted levels poses a
great risk to our civilization.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:40:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30 Nov 2006 06:57:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>Did you see Al Gore's movie? Come on now, tell the truth.

The problem with Al Gore's movie is that it focused on only one
factor. Even so, the greenhouse effect is a very complex issue and
CO2 emissions is only a small part of the greenhouse effect. Some
estimates have it that the CO2 emissions created by human activity
have contributed very little.

In any case, if you want a comprehensive picturte of what factors are
at work in climate change you have to conside all of the following.

"Causes of Global Climate Change

Climate change is controlled priily by cyclical eccentricities in
Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy
output.

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's
temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total
greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% -
0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts

(1) Astronomical Causes

* 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability (
sunspot activity )
* 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit
around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
* 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5� wobble in Earth's orbit
( tilt )
* 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's
elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

(2) Atmospheric Causes

* Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water
vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other
miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
* Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar
ice caps

(3) Tectonic Causes

* Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift)
causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems
that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles,
either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
* Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with
continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement."

BTW, there have been periods in the past when the earth's temperature
has been higher than it is now.

"The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is
not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene
Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period
in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred
approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before
human's invented industrial pollution."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:17:59
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164898675.618453.291420@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:1164837791.258223.108170@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> > Invent your own world. The ESA, NRC, GSA and others are leading
>> > scientific organizations, not some hack on a webpage.
>> >
>> Al Gores movie was fiction ya know. I like how any who disagrees with the
>> alarmists is a hack. Typical.
>
> Did you see Al Gore's movie? Come on now, tell the truth.
>
Nope. I did read some of the book. Most of it is online as well.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 02:32:29
From: Manco
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The_Professor wrote:
> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
> with respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be
> an issue of concern, people may as well know what they are talking
> about when they talk about what science has to say:
>
> The Ecological Society of America
>

STuff it up their butthole. It's 22 degrees and snowing.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 04:23:51
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Manco wrote:

> The_Professor wrote:
> > I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
> > with respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be
> > an issue of concern, people may as well know what they are talking
> > about when they talk about what science has to say:
> >
> > The Ecological Society of America
> >
>
> STuff it up their butthole. It's 22 degrees and snowing.

Right! 78 degrees and sunny...worked up a sweat out there today! November
29th!

Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:16:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:456E5ADE.8079F624@att.net...
>
>
> Manco wrote:
>
>> The_Professor wrote:
>> > I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
>> > with respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be
>> > an issue of concern, people may as well know what they are talking
>> > about when they talk about what science has to say:
>> >
>> > The Ecological Society of America
>> >
>>
>> STuff it up their butthole. It's 22 degrees and snowing.
>
> Right! 78 degrees and sunny...worked up a sweat out there today! November
> 29th!
>
You suck! :-) A whopping 6 here today.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 15:50:47
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The_Professor wrote:
> Tha National Reseach Council, for one, along with many other leading
> scientific organizations would disagree with you...but what do they
> know compared to you!

Ah who ya gonna believe ... a bunch of well respected scientific
organizations or some anonymous dweeb on a crackpot website called
junkscience.com?

I'm just glad it's still "shorts weather" here.
-----------------------------

I'm driving a car full of RSGers with the pedal to the metal. We top a
hill and there is a semi truck on it's side stretched across the road
in front of us.

Q. What should I do?

Frostback: Maybe you should get off the gas?
Lloyd: Or perhaps you should start hitting the brakes?
MnMikeW: That ain't a real truck.

A. It was a trick question. Like I'd be driving anywhere with you
losers!

Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:10:34
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 30 Nov 2006 00:38:16
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1164844247.263092.247660@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The_Professor wrote:
>> Tha National Reseach Council, for one, along with many other leading
>> scientific organizations would disagree with you...but what do they
>> know compared to you!
>
> Ah who ya gonna believe ... a bunch of well respected scientific
> organizations or some anonymous dweeb on a crackpot website called
> junkscience.com?
>
> I'm just glad it's still "shorts weather" here.

Me, too.

I don't know why people bother arguing with 'it isn't happening' people.
It's the same thing as evolution / evilution.

Some people have already made up their minds on evolution and global warming
for reasons that have nothing to do with the question itself. No amount of
rational argument will ever convince them that they are wrong, because being
wrong on the particulars of the question is not what it is about for them to
begin with.

Show some creationists a dinosaur fossil and they'll show you a trick put
there by Satan to lead sinners from the Truth. If they've abandoned that
approach for more sophisticated ones (e.g. Intelligent Design 'Theory'),
then they will simply wave off any refutations of their theory as political
or a conspiracy of the scientific community to silence proponents of a valid
alternate theory (in other words, completely ignore the fact that their
argument has just been swept aside).

The dynamic is the same for _some_ critics of the science around global
warming, and there's just no point in arguing with those types. Best to
point to the clear truth for the sake of the uneducated and move on.

Scott

Date: 30 Nov 2006 01:43:57
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Global Warming

S McFarlane wrote:

>
> The dynamic is the same for _some_ critics of the science around global
> warming, and there's just no point in arguing with those types. Best to
> point to the clear truth for the sake of the uneducated and move on.
>
>

Nothing wrong with providing some legitimate information.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 15:36:24
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> For every scientist that makes that claim there are at least that many
> that don't agree.

Scientists aren't split 50/50 on global warming. It's more like 99/1.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 00:17:40
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Global Warming

annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: Lloyd Parsons wrote:
: > For every scientist that makes that claim there are at least that many
: > that don't agree.
:
: Scientists aren't split 50/50 on global warming. It's more like 99/1.

And the 1 invariably is on the payroll of an energy interest.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:48:12
From:
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Seems to me, if we didnt have global warming we would all be under a
sheet of ice right now. There have been how many ice ages? And every
one of them have ended because of global warming.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:08:11
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1164840492.791701.265880@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Seems to me, if we didnt have global warming we would all be under a
> sheet of ice right now. There have been how many ice ages? And every
> one of them have ended because of global warming.
>
It was 6 F this morning here. Global warming is bunk. :-)

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:33:00
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Tha National Reseach Council, for one, along with many other leading
scientific organizations would disagree with you...but what do they
know compared to you!

MnMikew wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1164837996.713697.117650@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > > has a lot of technical gobbledegook, it has *ZERO* science content.
> >
> Just as your ESA report.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:06:36
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

I'll try again! That "report" is pure op-ed worried about another op-ed
"product" (a CD some people want to distribute in schools). While it
has a lot of technical gobbledegook, it has *ZERO* science content.

MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164834533.754983.61120@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> >> news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> > The_Professor wrote:
> >> >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
> >> >> with
> >> >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
> >> >> issue
> >> >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
> >> >> they talk about what science has to say:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Ecological Society of America
> >> >>
> >> >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> >> >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
> >> >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
> >> >>
> >> >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
> >> >> Protection
> >> >> Agency
> >> >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
> >> >>
> >> >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> >> >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> >> >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> >> >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> >> >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> >> >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> >> >> the nation's premier scientific society of
> >> >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> >> >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> >> >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> >> >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> >> >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> >> >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> >> >> accurate."
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing
> >> > now?
> >> >
> >> I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to
> >> the
> >> other side.
> >
> > What is the other side?
> >
> The respected scientists that say global warming is a natural cycle and man
> is not impacting it as much as the others would like you to believe.
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Date: 29 Nov 2006 16:24:32
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1164837996.713697.117650@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > has a lot of technical gobbledegook, it has *ZERO* science content.
>
Just as your ESA report.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:06:06
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: Global Warming

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Everyone knows it's excellent
for the soil's nutritional values, which, in turn can make an excellent
base for quality golf courses. And if you can't get on the course that
day, you can always use them when fishing for trout or bass.

If you get rid of Global Worming, how will these issues be dealt with?

On Nov 29, 1:57 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote in messagenews:lloydparsons-C07605.15512429112006@individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <4t6d9kF121me...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1164834533.754983.61120@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> >> "Bert Robbins" <s...@you.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >> > The_Professor wrote:
> >> >> >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
> >> >> >> issue
> >> >> >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about
> >> >> >> when
> >> >> >> they talk about what science has to say:
>
> >> >> >> The Ecological Society of America
>
> >> >> >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> >> >> >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nad...@esa.org
> >> >> >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; a...@esa.org
>
> >> >> >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
> >> >> >> Protection
> >> >> >> Agency
> >> >> >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
>
> >> >> >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> >> >> >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> >> >> >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> >> >> >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> >> >> >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> >> >> >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> >> >> >> the nation's premier scientific society of
> >> >> >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> >> >> >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> >> >> >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> >> >> >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> >> >> >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> >> >> >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> >> >> >> accurate."
>
> >> >> > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on
> >> >> > breathing
> >> >> > now?
>
> >> >> I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen
> >> >> to
> >> >> the
> >> >> other side.
>
> >> > What is the other side?
>
> >> The respected scientists that say global warming is a natural cycle and
> >> man
> >> is not impacting it as much as the others would like you to believe.
> >>http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
>
> > For every scientist that makes that claim there are at least that many
> > that don't agree.
>
> > But the fact is, man does impact on global warming. How much is the
> > question. Another fact is that man's impact is the only one we might be
> > able to do something about.
>
> > 'cause no matter how much we try, them thar cows will still be farting!
> > ;-)Yep. And volcano's will be erupting, wildfires burning, ect.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:04:39
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

That reprt has a buck of technical gobbledegook, and zero science.

MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164834533.754983.61120@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> >> news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> > The_Professor wrote:
> >> >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
> >> >> with
> >> >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
> >> >> issue
> >> >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
> >> >> they talk about what science has to say:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Ecological Society of America
> >> >>
> >> >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> >> >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
> >> >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
> >> >>
> >> >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
> >> >> Protection
> >> >> Agency
> >> >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
> >> >>
> >> >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> >> >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> >> >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> >> >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> >> >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> >> >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> >> >> the nation's premier scientific society of
> >> >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> >> >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> >> >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> >> >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> >> >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> >> >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> >> >> accurate."
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing
> >> > now?
> >> >
> >> I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to
> >> the
> >> other side.
> >
> > What is the other side?
> >
> The respected scientists that say global warming is a natural cycle and man
> is not impacting it as much as the others would like you to believe.
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:03:11
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Invent your own world. The ESA, NRC, GSA and others are leading
scientific organizations, not some hack on a webpage.

MnMikew wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1164835145.212815.294800@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > John B. wrote:
> >> MnMikew wrote:
> >> > "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> > > The_Professor wrote:
> >> > >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
> >> > >> with
> >> > >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
> >> > >> issue
> >> > >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
> >> > >> they talk about what science has to say:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Ecological Society of America
> >> > >>
> >> > >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> >> > >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
> >> > >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
> >> > >> Protection
> >> > >> Agency
> >> > >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
> >> > >>
> >> > >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> >> > >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> >> > >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> >> > >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> >> > >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> >> > >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> >> > >> the nation's premier scientific society of
> >> > >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> >> > >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> >> > >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> >> > >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> >> > >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> >> > >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> >> > >> accurate."
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing
> >> > > now?
> >> > >
> >> > I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to
> >> > the
> >> > other side.
> >>
> >> What is the other side?
> >
> > The anti-science side.
> >
> You mean the anti-alarmist side.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 12:59:06
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2006 18:46:06 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >There are theories that address the issue. Those theories say there is
> >great risk associated with continued production of greenhouse gasses.
> >Theories are well substantiated scientific explanations.
>
>
> Some are and some aren't. The theory that increased CO2 levels caused
> by humans are what's causing the current rise in temperature is a
> theory only.

There is no higher level construct that can be called a "scientific
explanation" than a theory.
"Laws" for example, simply describe regularities, and the basic premiss
of the "universality" of "laws" has been more or less discreditied,
although some cling to the faith like some cling to the notion that the
earth is an unlimited resource.

Contemporary theory represents the result of the continued work of all
those who have worked on the issue in the past and present. Most people
were skeptical of global warming when it was initially brought up,
however as time has passed it remains the theory that best explains the
facts. Many facts have arisen from testing since the initiation of the
idea, and have served only to strengthen the support for it. If there
were some major body of evidence that global warming could not explain,
you could be sure we would hear about it!

Unlike constructs gereated by other philosophies, scientific
explanations are not carved in stone; they evolve. However, they are
not at all discredited simply because someone doesn't like them.
Evolution, Global Warming and Sociobiology are three contemporary
bodies of theory that various socio-political forces don't like for one
reason or another, and their counter arguements are all the same.
Rhetoric lacking in empirical content. The rhetoric may in fact be
valid from some other philosophical approach, but it is not valid
scientifically.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:29:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 1 Dec 2006 12:59:06 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>Most people
>were skeptical of global warming when it was initially brought up,
>however as time has passed it remains the theory that best explains the
>facts.

I'm not denying that global warming is happening. That data seems to
be clear and all but a few researchers have problems with that. The
debate revolves around why it's happening. In addition, very few
researchers deny that the greenhouse effect is a factor in global
warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What some researchers are
saying is that CO2 emissions have very little effect because you're
talking about a percentage increase of a factor that is itself only a
percentage of the total greenhouse effect. Then you have to consider
that the greenhouse effect is only one of a number of factors that
effect global temperature. Accordingly, when you talk about CO2
emissions you're talking about a percent of a percent of a percent.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 19:17:46
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The_Professor wrote:
> Invent your own world. The ESA, NRC, GSA and others are leading
> scientific organizations, not some hack on a webpage.

We don't need to invent our own world, we already have one.

Science needs funding. Follow the money and you can learn lots of
interesting things.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 01:39:51
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:

> The_Professor wrote:
> > Invent your own world. The ESA, NRC, GSA and others are leading
> > scientific organizations, not some hack on a webpage.
>
> We don't need to invent our own world, we already have one.
>
> Science needs funding. Follow the money and you can learn lots of
> interesting things.

...and yet the science is against the politcal view of big money!

Date: 29 Nov 2006 16:21:56
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1164837791.258223.108170@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> Invent your own world. The ESA, NRC, GSA and others are leading
> scientific organizations, not some hack on a webpage.
>
Al Gores movie was fiction ya know. I like how any who disagrees with the
alarmists is a hack. Typical.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 01:46:49
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Global Warming

MnMikew wrote:

> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1164837791.258223.108170@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > Invent your own world. The ESA, NRC, GSA and others are leading
> > scientific organizations, not some hack on a webpage.
> >
> Al Gores movie was fiction ya know. I like how any who disagrees with the
> alarmists is a hack. Typical.

I posted links to statements by a well known and respected scientific
organization, which included links to other such statements by other such
organizations. I got a response that was a link to some op-ed webpage, and
posted my rersponse. I mentioned nothing about Al Gore's fiction.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 18:51:45
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:21:56 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1164837791.258223.108170@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> Invent your own world. The ESA, NRC, GSA and others are leading
>> scientific organizations, not some hack on a webpage.
>>
>Al Gores movie was fiction ya know. I like how any who disagrees with the
>alarmists is a hack. Typical.
>
The typical right-wing ostrich move. Buty your head, and nothing can
happen. Right.
___,
\o

Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:14:57
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:jnasm21p7kg86djg5l1t8tuj6h1h2ccj08@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:21:56 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>>news:1164837791.258223.108170@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>> Invent your own world. The ESA, NRC, GSA and others are leading
>>> scientific organizations, not some hack on a webpage.
>>>
>>Al Gores movie was fiction ya know. I like how any who disagrees with the
>>alarmists is a hack. Typical.
>>
> The typical right-wing ostrich move. Buty your head, and nothing can
> happen. Right.
>
You're right. I could run around like a chicken with my head cut off like
you leftys.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 16:29:43
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The lawsuit is not a scientific issue, but rather a legal issue concerning
language Congress enacted years ago.

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1164831078.220270.177910@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid with
respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an issue
of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
they talk about what science has to say:

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:19:05
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

John B. wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
> > "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> > news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > > The_Professor wrote:
> > >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid with
> > >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an issue
> > >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
> > >> they talk about what science has to say:
> > >>
> > >> The Ecological Society of America
> > >>
> > >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> > >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
> > >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
> > >>
> > >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental Protection
> > >> Agency
> > >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
> > >>
> > >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> > >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> > >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> > >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> > >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> > >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> > >> the nation's premier scientific society of
> > >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> > >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> > >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> > >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> > >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> > >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> > >> accurate."
> > >>
> > >
> > > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing now?
> > >
> > I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to the
> > other side.
>
> What is the other side?

The anti-science side.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 18:46:06
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2006 12:53:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> In any case, the human effect is pure speculation and not a scientific
> >> fact.
> >
> >There is no such thing as "scientific fact".
>
> Excellent, so we agree that the human effect on global warming is
> speculation and not a scientific fact.

There are theories that address the issue. Those theories say there is
great risk associated with continued production of greenhouse gasses.
Theories are well substantiated scientific explanations. Speculations
are the kinds of things those who don't like what science has to say on
the issue propose in response. No substance at all. Simply grasping at
straws and presenting hollow rhetoric only. Rhetorical tricks to try to
confuse people.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:36:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30 Nov 2006 18:46:06 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>There are theories that address the issue. Those theories say there is
>great risk associated with continued production of greenhouse gasses.
>Theories are well substantiated scientific explanations.

Some are and some aren't. The theory that increased CO2 levels caused
by humans are what's causing the current rise in temperature is a
theory only. This theory has very little scientific evidence to
support it, because this is the first time in the history of our
planet that humans are contributing to an increase in CO2. There's
simply not enough data to support the claim.

My guess would be that human activity has some effect, but not very
much. Perhaps this is wishful thinking because human CO2 emissions
will continue to rise and there's nothing that's going to stop it. Of
course, there may arise some technology that will allow us to remove
CO2 from the atmosphere. That's the only hope.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 17:10:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

If you think there is global warming now; wait until the yellow sun turns
into a red giant and swallows our planet whole.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 01 Dec 2006 21:48:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:10:30 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:

>If you think there is global warming now; wait until the yellow sun turns
>into a red giant and swallows our planet whole.

All the more reason to fund the space program to insure that the human
race can get our asses out of here.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 22:04:03
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:10:30 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> If you think there is global warming now; wait until the yellow sun
>> turns into a red giant and swallows our planet whole.
>
> All the more reason to fund the space program to insure that the human
> race can get our asses out of here.

I vote the Libertarian Jews get to go first *

* hey, I'm just sayin......

Date: 01 Dec 2006 22:22:00
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Head Shot wrote:
> If you think there is global warming now; wait until the yellow sun turns
> into a red giant and swallows our planet whole.

Thank you for your contribution to what has otherwise been a cogent
discussion.

You still owe me an apology Troll.

Joe

Date: 29 Nov 2006 19:14:44
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The_Professor wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> MnMikew wrote:
>>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> The_Professor wrote:
>>>>> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid with
>>>>> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an issue
>>>>> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
>>>>> they talk about what science has to say:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Ecological Society of America
>>>>>
>>>>> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
>>>>> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
>>>>> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
>>>>>
>>>>> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental Protection
>>>>> Agency
>>>>> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
>>>>> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
>>>>> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
>>>>> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
>>>>> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
>>>>> President of the Ecological Society of America,
>>>>> the nation's premier scientific society of
>>>>> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
>>>>> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
>>>>> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
>>>>> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
>>>>> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
>>>>> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
>>>>> accurate."
>>>>>
>>>> Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing now?
>>>>
>>> I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to the
>>> other side.
>> What is the other side?
>
> The anti-science side.
>

The population of the Earth has been increasing through technological
advancements for tens of thousands of years. This increase in population
has, allegedly, contributed to our own demise by increasing the amount
of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere?

"Anti-science?" not at all. Questioning judgment and agenda's yes.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 15:55:26
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1164835145.212815.294800@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> John B. wrote:
>> MnMikew wrote:
>> > "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>> > news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> > > The_Professor wrote:
>> > >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
>> > >> with
>> > >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
>> > >> issue
>> > >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
>> > >> they talk about what science has to say:
>> > >>
>> > >> The Ecological Society of America
>> > >>
>> > >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
>> > >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
>> > >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
>> > >>
>> > >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
>> > >> Protection
>> > >> Agency
>> > >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
>> > >>
>> > >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
>> > >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
>> > >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
>> > >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
>> > >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
>> > >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
>> > >> the nation's premier scientific society of
>> > >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
>> > >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
>> > >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
>> > >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
>> > >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
>> > >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
>> > >> accurate."
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing
>> > > now?
>> > >
>> > I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to
>> > the
>> > other side.
>>
>> What is the other side?
>
> The anti-science side.
>
You mean the anti-alarmist side.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 00:38:57
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <4t6dujF12mo0uU1@mid.individual.net >
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
>
>
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1164835145.212815.294800@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > John B. wrote:
> >> MnMikew wrote:
> >> > "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> > > The_Professor wrote:
> >> > >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
> >> > >> with
> >> > >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
> >> > >> issue
> >> > >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
> >> > >> they talk about what science has to say:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Ecological Society of America
> >> > >>
> >> > >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> >> > >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
> >> > >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
> >> > >> Protection
> >> > >> Agency
> >> > >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
> >> > >>
> >> > >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> >> > >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> >> > >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> >> > >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> >> > >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> >> > >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> >> > >> the nation's premier scientific society of
> >> > >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> >> > >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> >> > >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> >> > >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> >> > >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> >> > >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> >> > >> accurate."
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing
> >> > > now?
> >> > >
> >> > I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to
> >> > the
> >> > other side.
> >>
> >> What is the other side?
> >
> > The anti-science side.
> >
> You mean the anti-alarmist side.

An anti-alarmist is someone who should have been listening in the '60s
and were not. That has led to what we have today, which according to
some, we should not be alarmed about. Let's wait another 50 years and see
what happens, right?

Date: 29 Nov 2006 19:22:40
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

George Orwell wrote:
> In article <4t6dujF12mo0uU1@mid.individual.net>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> You mean the anti-alarmist side.
>
> An anti-alarmist is someone who should have been listening in the '60s
> and were not. That has led to what we have today, which according to
> some, we should not be alarmed about. Let's wait another 50 years and see
> what happens, right?

Ten years ago people were complaining about the cutting down of rain
forests. This all stopped when we learned that it wasn't that bad and in
fact it had positive effects.

Whose to say that the current fad of promoting global warming requires
immediate action. The coming ice age fad of the '70's seemed to resolve
itself.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 23:00:00
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <v_Cdnbp8TtTNufPYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com >
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
>
> George Orwell wrote:
> > In article <4t6dujF12mo0uU1@mid.individual.net>
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> You mean the anti-alarmist side.
> >
> > An anti-alarmist is someone who should have been listening in the '60s
> > and were not. That has led to what we have today, which according to
> > some, we should not be alarmed about. Let's wait another 50 years and see
> > what happens, right?
>
> Ten years ago people were complaining about the cutting down of rain
> forests. This all stopped when we learned that it wasn't that bad and in
> fact it had positive effects.
>
> Whose to say that the current fad of promoting global warming requires
> immediate action. The coming ice age fad of the '70's seemed to resolve

Actually, I don't think the rain forest argument is quite as positive as
you would lead us to believe. There are still many reasons/species/etc
that are being lost never to recover, including who knows how many
medical cures that have been slashed and burned. Now, let's look at
current fads. Hoola hoops, 8 tracks, TIVO, to name a few were and are
fads, current or not so. We don't dare call the future of the planet,
whether you're on it or in it, a fad at all. If you're going by the best
minds and how most of them think, you better start worrying about this to
the point that action, maybe harsh, should begin. We're not talking
Chicken Little in this case

Date: 29 Nov 2006 20:28:21
From: Del Ray
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The polar bears believe in global warming and it's effects. And they
ain't got any money.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 21:58:27
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Del Ray wrote:
> The polar bears believe in global warming and it's effects. And they
> ain't got any money.

Their furs are worth bank.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 01:42:16
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:

> George Orwell wrote:
> > In article <4t6dujF12mo0uU1@mid.individual.net>
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> You mean the anti-alarmist side.
> >
> > An anti-alarmist is someone who should have been listening in the '60s
> > and were not. That has led to what we have today, which according to
> > some, we should not be alarmed about. Let's wait another 50 years and see
> > what happens, right?
>
> Ten years ago people were complaining about the cutting down of rain
> forests. This all stopped when we learned that it wasn't that bad and in
> fact it had positive effects.

That's nutty. Just because pop culture media doesn't follow the rain forest
issue doesn't mean the damage isn't ongoing. I'd like to know the supposed
postive benefits of cutting down the rainforest though. Maybe you should go
live in a place, say in Amazonia, where the rainforests were removed say 20
years ago.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:08:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

MnMikew wrote:
> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > The_Professor wrote:
> >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid with
> >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an issue
> >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
> >> they talk about what science has to say:
> >>
> >> The Ecological Society of America
> >>
> >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
> >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
> >>
> >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental Protection
> >> Agency
> >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
> >>
> >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> >> the nation's premier scientific society of
> >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> >> accurate."
> >>
> >
> > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing now?
> >
> I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to the
> other side.

What is the other side?

Date: 29 Nov 2006 15:44:15
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164834533.754983.61120@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>> news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> > The_Professor wrote:
>> >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
>> >> with
>> >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
>> >> issue
>> >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
>> >> they talk about what science has to say:
>> >>
>> >> The Ecological Society of America
>> >>
>> >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
>> >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
>> >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
>> >>
>> >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
>> >> Protection
>> >> Agency
>> >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
>> >>
>> >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
>> >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
>> >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
>> >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
>> >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
>> >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
>> >> the nation's premier scientific society of
>> >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
>> >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
>> >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
>> >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
>> >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
>> >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
>> >> accurate."
>> >>
>> >
>> > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing
>> > now?
>> >
>> I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to
>> the
>> other side.
>
> What is the other side?
>
The respected scientists that say global warming is a natural cycle and man
is not impacting it as much as the others would like you to believe.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Date: 29 Nov 2006 22:04:53
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <4t6d9kF121mehU1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164834533.754983.61120@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> >> news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> > The_Professor wrote:
> >> >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
> >> >> with
> >> >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
> >> >> issue
> >> >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
> >> >> they talk about what science has to say:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Ecological Society of America
> >> >>
> >> >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> >> >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
> >> >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
> >> >>
> >> >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
> >> >> Protection
> >> >> Agency
> >> >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
> >> >>
> >> >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> >> >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> >> >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> >> >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> >> >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> >> >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> >> >> the nation's premier scientific society of
> >> >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> >> >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> >> >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> >> >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> >> >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> >> >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> >> >> accurate."
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing
> >> > now?
> >> >
> >> I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to
> >> the
> >> other side.
> >
> > What is the other side?
> >
> The respected scientists that say global warming is a natural cycle and man
> is not impacting it as much as the others would like you to believe.
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

I'm sorry, but the simple holes in logic that that site has make it a
joke.

First of all, real greenhouses and the atmosphere are *different* the
"greenhouse effect" describes how our atmosphere behaves in a manner
*analogous* to a greenhouse (i.e. how having it causes the temperature
of the things within it to be warmer than they would be without it). You
cannot claim that simply because the mechanisms are not the same that
there is therefore no effect. Call it the "blurn" effect and then
proceed with the rebuttal.

Convection is one of the processes by which things can lose heat and
from which an actual greenhouse can reduce the loss of heat. However,
convection causes heat to eventually be lost by mixing a hotter fluid
with a colder one. The atmosphere can thus never lose any heat by
convection because there is no colder fluid with which it can mix.
Because the earth and its atmosphere taken together are not in contact
with anything, they can't lose heat by convection or conduction.

That only leaves radiation.

That neatly refutes the first bit of that page's silliness.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

Date: 30 Nov 2006 05:45:06
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 29-Nov-2006, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote:

> The atmosphere can thus never lose any heat by
> convection because there is no colder fluid with which it can mix.
> Because the earth and its atmosphere taken together are not in contact
> with anything,

Space may not be anything, but it sure is a cold nothing!

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 05:53:22
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <456e6fdc$0$17459$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:

> On 29-Nov-2006, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > The atmosphere can thus never lose any heat by
> > convection because there is no colder fluid with which it can mix.
> > Because the earth and its atmosphere taken together are not in contact
> > with anything,
>
> Space may not be anything, but it sure is a cold nothing!

And a molecule can't transfer any kinetic energy to a nothing.

That's why the shuttle has to open the payload doors: head *radiators*.
Otherwise, despite all that "cold nothing" the shuttle heats up due to
radiant heat transfer.

Get it: just like the earth, the only way for the shuttle to lose head
is by radiating it.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

Date: 30 Nov 2006 13:06:03
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:53:22 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net >
wrote:

>
>Get it: just like the earth, the only way for the shuttle to lose head
>is by radiating it.

Or to spew mass.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 19:01:59
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Global Warming

In article <1tltm2hv8md3bh7tta2d5r3r130p5sq6cv@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:53:22 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Get it: just like the earth, the only way for the shuttle to lose head
> >is by radiating it.
>
> Or to spew mass.

Neither happens much for much the same reason: neither can afford to.
The only difference is the time scale.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

Date: 29 Nov 2006 15:51:24
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 29 Nov 2006 15:57:09
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-C07605.15512429112006@individual.net...
> In article <4t6d9kF121mehU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164834533.754983.61120@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > MnMikew wrote:
>> >> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >> > The_Professor wrote:
>> >> >> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an
>> >> >> issue
>> >> >> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about
>> >> >> when
>> >> >> they talk about what science has to say:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Ecological Society of America
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
>> >> >> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
>> >> >> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental
>> >> >> Protection
>> >> >> Agency
>> >> >> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
>> >> >> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
>> >> >> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
>> >> >> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
>> >> >> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
>> >> >> President of the Ecological Society of America,
>> >> >> the nation's premier scientific society of
>> >> >> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
>> >> >> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
>> >> >> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
>> >> >> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
>> >> >> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
>> >> >> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
>> >> >> accurate."
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on
>> >> > breathing
>> >> > now?
>> >> >
>> >> I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen
>> >> to
>> >> the
>> >> other side.
>> >
>> > What is the other side?
>> >
>> The respected scientists that say global warming is a natural cycle and
>> man
>> is not impacting it as much as the others would like you to believe.
>> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
>
> For every scientist that makes that claim there are at least that many
> that don't agree.
>
> But the fact is, man does impact on global warming. How much is the
> question. Another fact is that man's impact is the only one we might be
> able to do something about.
>
> 'cause no matter how much we try, them thar cows will still be farting!
> ;-)

Yep. And volcano's will be erupting, wildfires burning, ect.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 15:38:33
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The_Professor wrote:
> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid with
> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an issue
> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
> they talk about what science has to say:
>
> The Ecological Society of America
>
> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
>
> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental Protection
> Agency
> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
>
> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
> President of the Ecological Society of America,
> the nation's premier scientific society of
> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
> accurate."
>

Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing now?

Date: 01 Dec 2006 09:37:27
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Joe wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > I posted science's take on the issue, with the ESA's general view and
> > links to the views of other organizations. If you want to invoke
> > "cycles" you need a model that predicts these cycles cause global
> > warming, with a cause and effect relationship similar to that of the
> > known effect of greenhouse gasses in trapping energy in the atmosphere.
> > We know as an observable fact that these gasses trap energy. All we
> > have with the cycles are correlations and ad hoc explainations lacking
> > totally in empirical content.
> >
> Excuse me. I did not invoke cycles, I merely suggested that your
> characterization is wrong. I am curious why you are so adamant that
> there is no "hard data" supporting the thesis that certain orbital
> cycles have a significant impact on the earth's long term weather.
>
> You did read my whole post, right? I never argued that there is no
> problem. I did mirror the same statement that ESA makes: I quote from
> your initial post.
> "Although current scientific understanding, by
> definition, constantly changes, these statements
> represent the latest information and are
> supported by a wide group of climate scientists."
>
> I translate that into "all the data ain't in yet". As far as using
> "supported by a wide group of climate scientists.", as support, need I
> remind you that at one time it was believed by a wide group of
> scientists, specifically, The Royal SocietY, that the human body could
> not withstand speeds greater than thirty miles an hour.

I read your whole post...didn't I? I appreciate your perspective and
have no quarrel with you at all. This is just discussion!

I realize you were not supporting any sort of cycles arguement. The
issue, however, is the effect of human caused alterations in the
atmosphere. The cycles arguement is a red herring.

Consider...say the fluctuations in the radiation emitted by the sun
does affect the earths temperature...and that could be a stretch...then
one could ask what then effect does a higher concentration of
greenhouse gases have on the effect of variation in the intensity of
solar radiation that hits the earth?

I like to use the 30MPH thing myself to remind people to be cautious,
however that really was a speculation. No testing of it at all. The
statement was totally lacking in empirical content.

In science, the data are never all in. We have learned that Vioxx
causes heart attacks. Who knows what we will learn about say statins?
All we can do is assess risk. The next detonation of a nuclear device
could trigger an uncontrollable chain reaction that would incinerate
the entire planet...but the risk is rather low...according to the
consensus among knowledgeable scientists! We really weren't sure at all
with the first one though! Luckily the alarmists were wrong that
time...but was it worth the risk?

Date: 01 Dec 2006 19:00:10
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The_Professor wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>The_Professor wrote:
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>

BIG SNIP
>
> I read your whole post...didn't I? I appreciate your perspective and
> have no quarrel with you at all. This is just discussion!
>
I appreciate that we are in a discussion.

> I realize you were not supporting any sort of cycles arguement. The
> issue, however, is the effect of human caused alterations in the
> atmosphere. The cycles arguement is a red herring.
The "cycles" argument is frequently used as a red herring but I
personally think that it, coupled with the variability of Sol are the
prime movers. See below.

>
> Consider...say the fluctuations in the radiation emitted by the sun
> does affect the earths temperature...and that could be a stretch...

This one is not a stretch, but for the sake of argument...

then
> one could ask what then effect does a higher concentration of
> greenhouse gases have on the effect of variation in the intensity of
> solar radiation that hits the earth?

The above is a case of dealing with the devil you know. GHGs and albedo
influencers clearly moderate the impact of solar radiation, providing
both positive and negative reinforcement. From my perspective, as is
yours, it is best to err on the side of caution when dealing with things
that are not fully understood.

>
> I like to use the 30MPH thing myself to remind people to be cautious,
> however that really was a speculation. No testing of it at all. The
> statement was totally lacking in empirical content.

Agreed. Very typical of any establishment position. That global
warming is occurring was, a few decades back, totally fringe science and
pooh pooed by virtually every senior science spokesman and society. The
same kind of thing is going on with Paleoanthropology, genetics, and the
list goes on. I personally get very concerned when the "academic
community" comes together on a position and starts treating the subject
as a matter of faith.

>
> In science, the data are never all in. We have learned that Vioxx
> causes heart attacks. Who knows what we will learn about say statins?

Statins are a good example for me. My cardiologist wanted me to go on a
regimen post bypass. I looked at the documentation for the drugs before
he even wrote a scrip and then checked with a GP that I trusted. The
GP and I both had the same position; the drugs are too dangerous unless
the underlying condition is even worse, which in my case it wasn't.
(Long story)
> All we can do is assess risk. The next detonation of a nuclear device
> could trigger an uncontrollable chain reaction that would incinerate
> the entire planet...but the risk is rather low...according to the
> consensus among knowledgeable scientists! We really weren't sure at all
> with the first one though! Luckily the alarmists were wrong that
> time...but was it worth the risk?

Good example. I think the risk was and is extremely low and the initial
concern was a sound fear of the unknown. After all, there is a real
statistical risk that all the air molecules in the room I am sitting in
could suddenly clump together at the other end and leave me in a vacuum.
I'll live with this one because the numbers are so tiny and besides,
do I have a choice?

A closer example and one where I have a more elevated concern is with
the implementation of the new super colliders. I think the risk of an
untoward event is small, but with the uncertain state of knowledge,
should we take the risk given that the consequences are severe. That
said, we need new energy sources if for no other reason than to deal
with a potential comet / asteroid impact. The odds of an impact are
100% and the consequences are an extinction event. How do we place our
bets?

Joe

Date: 30 Nov 2006 18:54:49
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Joe wrote:

I posted science's take on the issue, with the ESA's general view and
links to the views of other organizations. If you want to invoke
"cycles" you need a model that predicts these cycles cause global
warming, with a cause and effect relationship similar to that of the
known effect of greenhouse gasses in trapping energy in the atmosphere.
We know as an observable fact that these gasses trap energy. All we
have with the cycles are correlations and ad hoc explainations lacking
totally in empirical content.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 18:54:47
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 30 Nov 2006 18:54:16
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 01 Dec 2006 06:22:01
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30-Nov-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> I posted science's take on the issue

"Science" is not a monolith and does not speak with one voice but rather a
dialogue between many. This is not a settled question, it is much too
complex.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 03:46:39
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The_Professor wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
> I posted science's take on the issue, with the ESA's general view and
> links to the views of other organizations. If you want to invoke
> "cycles" you need a model that predicts these cycles cause global
> warming, with a cause and effect relationship similar to that of the
> known effect of greenhouse gasses in trapping energy in the atmosphere.
> We know as an observable fact that these gasses trap energy. All we
> have with the cycles are correlations and ad hoc explainations lacking
> totally in empirical content.
>
Excuse me. I did not invoke cycles, I merely suggested that your
characterization is wrong. I am curious why you are so adamant that
there is no "hard data" supporting the thesis that certain orbital
cycles have a significant impact on the earth's long term weather.

You did read my whole post, right? I never argued that there is no
problem. I did mirror the same statement that ESA makes: I quote from
your initial post.
"Although current scientific understanding, by
definition, constantly changes, these statements
represent the latest information and are
supported by a wide group of climate scientists."

I translate that into "all the data ain't in yet". As far as using
"supported by a wide group of climate scientists.", as support, need I
remind you that at one time it was believed by a wide group of
scientists, specifically, The Royal SocietY, that the human body could
not withstand speeds greater than thirty miles an hour.

Joe

Date: 30 Nov 2006 13:28:55
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

sfb wrote:
> The Supremes are NOT ruling on the Global Warming in any way, shape, or
> form. The only issue before the Court is whether the language of the various
> EPA acts covers CO2. If EPA is required to do something about CO2, the court
> battles have just begun as each and every act of the EPA will be contested
> in the courts as either doing too much or not enough.
>
>
I am no legal expert in any sense, but I follow this case. The issue
seems to hang on whether or not enforcement would make any difference.
You cannot enforce environmental laws unless they actually make some
difference, apparently. The judges are not questioning the states and
cities views that global warming is a great risk globally. They are
questioning whther or not enforcing the laws the states and cities want
enforced would affect that risk. At least that's what it looks like to
me.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 13:10:00
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Joe wrote:

> Any first year student of statistics, in fact many 8th graders, will
> tell you that correlation does NOT imply causation. Your argument is
> resting on a very poor foundation.

That applies 100% to the "cycles" arguement. There is only correlation
with hypothetical cycles. No causation.

> The links have not been firmly established, nor the magnitude of effect,
> nor the interrelated chemistry.

The reality is that the links have been established. I included some
information, with links to related information. We have a good
understanding of the effects of the chemicals in question on the
atmoshpere. We can test these theories quite effectively, and create
models (based on the actual data (ie facts) of the effects of the
chemicals) that can predict global effects in the atmosphere. We can
then assess the deegree to which those predictions match what we see.
It's not a matter of making something up to suit your socio-political
views. Scientists are in fact EXCEPTIONALLY skeptical, much moreso than
the general population. A consensus amongst them on such an issue is as
a sociological fact, quite meaningful.

>
> Just so we are clear, there is something happening, human population is
> adding to the heat effect but we (We, as in most scientists and other
> human beings capable of critical thinking.) don't know the scale of the
> effect nor what an appropriate response is yet.
>

We know the RISK. We know the appropriate response. It's a mtter of
what RISK you want to take with what we hand down to future generations
for the sake of our greedy existence at the blip of time we happen to
exist here on earth.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 22:17:28
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The_Professor wrote:

> Joe wrote:
>
>
>>Any first year student of statistics, in fact many 8th graders, will
>>tell you that correlation does NOT imply causation. Your argument is
>>resting on a very poor foundation.
>
>
> That applies 100% to the "cycles" arguement. There is only correlation
> with hypothetical cycles. No causation.

Actually, no. The effects on global temperature resulting from
increases and decreases in solar radiation are extremely well
documented. There is a clear cause and effect relationship.

Additionally, the Sun is variable star and the effects of changes in its
luminosity are also well documented.

>>The links have not been firmly established, nor the magnitude of effect,
>>nor the interrelated chemistry.

The data does suggest some links but lab experiments do not scale very
well to a global level. There certainly are indications but the problem
is too complex for any current models or platforms to run the needed
model. If you KNOW of any, point me to them.

> The reality is that the links have been established. I included some
> information, with links to related information. We have a good
> understanding of the effects of the chemicals in question on the
> atmoshpere. We can test these theories quite effectively, and create
> models (based on the actual data (ie facts) of the effects of the
> chemicals) that can predict global effects in the atmosphere. We can
> then assess the deegree to which those predictions match what we see.

See above.

> It's not a matter of making something up to suit your socio-political
> views. Scientists are in fact EXCEPTIONALLY skeptical, much moreso than
> the general population.

Agreed.

Except when the premise goes against the "prevailing wisdom and truth".

A consensus amongst them on such an issue is as
> a sociological fact, quite meaningful.
>
Huh? You can not defend such a statement.

>
>>Just so we are clear, there is something happening, human population is
>>adding to the heat effect but we (We, as in most scientists and other
>>human beings capable of critical thinking.) don't know the scale of the
>>effect nor what an appropriate response is yet.
>>
>
>
> We know the RISK. We know the appropriate response. It's a mtter of
> what RISK you want to take with what we hand down to future generations
> for the sake of our greedy existence at the blip of time we happen to
> exist here on earth.
>

This last is a POLITICAL statement, not a scientific statement. We know
that there is a potential risk. That much is a fact.

Since we can not model the effects we can not possibly know what an
appropriate response would be. Think of all the well meaning ecological
introductions that have wreaked havoc on the local ecosystem. Ask the
Aussies.

Further, I can point out a strong correlation between global warming
patterns and the existence of the human race, its periods of expansion
and retraction. What does that tell you about anything? Not much by
itself.

Lastly, since you are putting forth your opinion, let me say that I also
have an opinion and it happens to be very much like yours.

In my opinion, global warming is a fact. We, the human race is
contributing to it. I also think that it would be prudent to minimize
our contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the extent that we
can maintain our world population at, at least, the current economic
levels. To that end we need to be developing a non carbon based energy
economy as soon as possible.

That was opinion, not fact. Based on my opinion, I would urge that the
major economies establish serious joint ventures to develop new and
innovative energy production systems. The right solution may not even
be a SWAG right this minute but there is one out there. Do I expect
something like this to happen? Not in my lifetime or my children's
lifetime. Hopefully they will be surprised.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 02:18:28
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:YLIbh.39816$Fw5.15525@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> That was opinion, not fact. Based on my opinion, I would urge that the
> major economies establish serious joint ventures to develop new and
> innovative energy production systems. The right solution may not even be
> a SWAG right this minute but there is one out there. Do I expect
> something like this to happen? Not in my lifetime or my children's
> lifetime. Hopefully they will be surprised.

If you aren't already familiar with the topic, you should look at what's
being done in the area of high-energy physics and plasma science.
Relatively benign and abundant energy production is out there. The only
question is whether we will make it to the finish line in time.

www.iter.org , for example.

Scott

Date: 01 Dec 2006 02:47:18
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

S McFarlane wrote:
> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> news:YLIbh.39816$Fw5.15525@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>>
>>That was opinion, not fact. Based on my opinion, I would urge that the
>>major economies establish serious joint ventures to develop new and
>>innovative energy production systems. The right solution may not even be
>>a SWAG right this minute but there is one out there. Do I expect
>>something like this to happen? Not in my lifetime or my children's
>>lifetime. Hopefully they will be surprised.
>
>
> If you aren't already familiar with the topic, you should look at what's
> being done in the area of high-energy physics and plasma science.
> Relatively benign and abundant energy production is out there. The only
> question is whether we will make it to the finish line in time.
>
> www.iter.org , for example.
>
> Scott
>

Scott,

Thanks for the link. I am familiar with ITER and some related fusion
projects but I just don't think that this effort will be the long term
solution. While this effort may provide power for the grid, something
needs to be done to create small scale power sources for aircraft, local
surface transport, third world economies, etc. Battery technology will
improve but I doubt that it will reach the charge density needed.

As I said, the answer is out there but invisible at the moment. The
next real breakthrough is never foreseen.

Joe

Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:59:21
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30-Nov-2006, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:

> S McFarlane wrote:
> > "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> > news:YLIbh.39816$Fw5.15525@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >>That was opinion, not fact. Based on my opinion, I would urge that the
> >>major economies establish serious joint ventures to develop new and
> >>innovative energy production systems. The right solution may not even
> >>be
> >>a SWAG right this minute but there is one out there. Do I expect
> >>something like this to happen? Not in my lifetime or my children's
> >>lifetime. Hopefully they will be surprised.
> >
> >
> > If you aren't already familiar with the topic, you should look at what's
> >
> > being done in the area of high-energy physics and plasma science.
> > Relatively benign and abundant energy production is out there. The only
> >
> > question is whether we will make it to the finish line in time.
> >
> > www.iter.org , for example.
> >
> > Scott
> >
>
> Scott,
>
> Thanks for the link. I am familiar with ITER and some related fusion
> projects but I just don't think that this effort will be the long term
> solution. While this effort may provide power for the grid, something
> needs to be done to create small scale power sources for aircraft, local
> surface transport, third world economies, etc. Battery technology will
> improve but I doubt that it will reach the charge density needed.
>
> As I said, the answer is out there but invisible at the moment. The
> next real breakthrough is never foreseen.

Something like this perhaps:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061201180713.htm

me

Date: 05 Dec 2006 01:03:37
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:59:41 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:03:01 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> My argument would be that the VP has the right to invest his money any
>>> way he wants.
>>
>>Obviously. But don't you find it revealing that the main chickenhawk in
>>charge of American foreign policy is shorting the dollar?
>
> Hedging against a fall in the dollar would be a better description. It's
> no secret that the Bush Administration has done nothing to stop the
> falling dollar and Cheney is aware of that. It's difficult to tell from
> the article exactly how much he's got in each fund because the ranges
> are so high, but it looks like he's about 60% dollars and 40% foreign
> currency.
>
> It looks like a fairly conservative investment portfolio with hedges
> against inflation and currency fluctuations. There's very little chance
> that he's going to make huge profits from his investments, but it's also
> unlikely that he's going to take any losses.

Let me spell it out for you. The dollar is tied to the price of oil. Iraq
has a shitpile of oil. We invade. Cheney has access to the raw intel and
knows how things are going. And he shorts the dollar with his own
investments. Money talks, bullshit walks.

And the best part is, suckers like you still believe these idiot excuses
about Saddam, WMD, democracy, "Islamofascism," and all the rest of it.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:09:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Joe wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> >> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:46:02 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> By the extreme right.
> >>>>>>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
> >>>>>>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
> >>>>>> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than
> >>>>>> left
> >>>>>> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
> >>>>>> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
> >>>>>> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
> >>>>>> that's rare.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
> >>>>>> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my
> >>>>>> beliefs. I
> >>>>>> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
> >>>>>> conservative side in financial affairs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of
> >>>>> government.
> >>>>>
> >>>> No shit.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than
> >>>>> liberals.
> >>>>>
> >>>> In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean
> >>>> much.
> >>> At least you are not disputing the fact that conservatives are more
> >>> generous with their money when it comes to charity than liberals. Kind
> >>> of brings new meaning to I got my now you get yours.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm disputing it. Generosity is best measured not in raw dollars, but
> >> in the percentage of one's income. Gross giving by conservatives is
> >> probably higher than by liberals because conservatives generally have
> >> more to give. That's why they're conservative. Also, liberals tend to
> >> be more giving of their time to charity than conservatives. Whom do you
> >> admire more - a rich conservative housewife who organizes a charity
> >> ball or a middle-class liberal one who donates her time to the charity?
> >>
> >
> > Do you have proof to support your assertion that liberals give more time
> > to charity than conservatives?
> >
>
> Bert,
>
> Its hand waving. He is a diplo wannabe. Those folks don't need facts.

Here you have created a new social group, "diplo wannabes," and
stereotyped them. That's really funny.

>
> Joe

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:41:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:46:02 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> By the extreme right.
> >>>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
> >>>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
> >>> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
> >>> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
> >>> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
> >>> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
> >>> that's rare.
> >>>
> >>> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
> >>> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
> >>> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
> >>> conservative side in financial affairs.
> >>>
> >> I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of government.
> >>
> > No shit.
> >
> >> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
> >>
> > In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean
> > much.
>
> At least you are not disputing the fact that conservatives are more
> generous with their money when it comes to charity than liberals. Kind
> of brings new meaning to I got my now you get yours.

I'm disputing it. Generosity is best measured not in raw dollars, but
in the percentage of one's income. Gross giving by conservatives is
probably higher than by liberals because conservatives generally have
more to give. That's why they're conservative. Also, liberals tend to
be more giving of their time to charity than conservatives. Whom do you
admire more - a rich conservative housewife who organizes a charity
ball or a middle-class liberal one who donates her time to the charity?

Date: 06 Dec 2006 11:13:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 5 Dec 2006 18:41:19 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>I'm disputing it. Generosity is best measured not in raw dollars, but
>in the percentage of one's income. Gross giving by conservatives is
>probably higher than by liberals because conservatives generally have
>more to give. That's why they're conservative. Also, liberals tend to
>be more giving of their time to charity than conservatives. Whom do you
>admire more - a rich conservative housewife who organizes a charity
>ball or a middle-class liberal one who donates her time to the charity?

Wrong. The study shows that conservatives give more to charities
across all income groups and they also donate more time to charity and
give more blood.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 06:25:44
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:ftqdn2pv8lkoi5sum3bkstqp8r7em6il37@4ax.com...
> On 5 Dec 2006 18:41:19 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm disputing it. Generosity is best measured not in raw dollars, but
>>in the percentage of one's income. Gross giving by conservatives is
>>probably higher than by liberals because conservatives generally have
>>more to give. That's why they're conservative. Also, liberals tend to
>>be more giving of their time to charity than conservatives. Whom do you
>>admire more - a rich conservative housewife who organizes a charity
>>ball or a middle-class liberal one who donates her time to the charity?
>
> Wrong. The study shows that conservatives give more to charities
> across all income groups and they also donate more time to charity and
> give more blood.

I'll dispute the meaning being attached to it in this thread. It is clearly
being thrown out there to make the point 'conservatives good; liberals bad".
The stats have some meaning, but nothing like what is being implied here.

In the first place, the phrase 'conservative' is very nebulous to begin
with. So is the phrase 'liberal'. How does one decide whether a given
individual is conservative or liberal?

If someone is a staunch supporter of the death penalty, but believes the
state has no business mucking around with reproductive rights, are they
conservative or liberal?

If someone beleves the government has no business using tax revenues to prop
up the chronically unemployed and clearly unwilling to work (i.e. lazy), but
believes the government should take a proactive stance in promoting the
welfare of traditionally oppressed segments of our society, are they
conservative or liberal?

etc.

Such people exist. If they cannot be qauntified on the artificial spectrum
of 'conservative' - 'liberal', then any statistical analysis attempting to
establish a relationship between altuism and that scale has some very tough
sledding to do.

I doubt seriously that the author's thesis can be boiled down to such
oversimplification. If it can, then he's simply full of holiday stuffing.

Scott

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:51:31
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:46:02 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the extreme right.
>>>>>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
>>>>>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
>>>>> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
>>>>> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
>>>>> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
>>>>> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
>>>>> that's rare.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
>>>>> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
>>>>> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
>>>>> conservative side in financial affairs.
>>>>>
>>>> I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of government.
>>>>
>>> No shit.
>>>
>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>>>
>>> In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean
>>> much.
>> At least you are not disputing the fact that conservatives are more
>> generous with their money when it comes to charity than liberals. Kind
>> of brings new meaning to I got my now you get yours.
>
>
> I'm disputing it. Generosity is best measured not in raw dollars, but
> in the percentage of one's income. Gross giving by conservatives is
> probably higher than by liberals because conservatives generally have
> more to give. That's why they're conservative. Also, liberals tend to
> be more giving of their time to charity than conservatives. Whom do you
> admire more - a rich conservative housewife who organizes a charity
> ball or a middle-class liberal one who donates her time to the charity?
>

Do you have proof to support your assertion that liberals give more time
to charity than conservatives?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:42:21
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> I'm disputing it. Generosity is best measured not in raw dollars, but
>> in the percentage of one's income. Gross giving by conservatives is
>> probably higher than by liberals because conservatives generally have
>> more to give. That's why they're conservative. Also, liberals tend to
>> be more giving of their time to charity than conservatives. Whom do
>> you admire more - a rich conservative housewife who organizes a
>> charity ball or a middle-class liberal one who donates her time to
>> the charity?
>
> Do you have proof to support your assertion that liberals give more
> time to charity than conservatives?

I believe if you write to the person in this below link (Professor Lise
Vesterlund at Pitt), that person can give you some direction on how to find
studies on altruism by financial group, race, sex, etc.
http://www.umc.pitt.edu/rr/issues/2006spring/giving.html

Date: 06 Dec 2006 03:04:29
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:46:02 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the extreme right.
>>>>>>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
>>>>>>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
>>>>>> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than
>>>>>> left
>>>>>> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
>>>>>> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
>>>>>> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
>>>>>> that's rare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
>>>>>> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my
>>>>>> beliefs. I
>>>>>> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
>>>>>> conservative side in financial affairs.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of
>>>>> government.
>>>>>
>>>> No shit.
>>>>
>>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than
>>>>> liberals.
>>>>>
>>>> In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean
>>>> much.
>>> At least you are not disputing the fact that conservatives are more
>>> generous with their money when it comes to charity than liberals. Kind
>>> of brings new meaning to I got my now you get yours.
>>
>>
>> I'm disputing it. Generosity is best measured not in raw dollars, but
>> in the percentage of one's income. Gross giving by conservatives is
>> probably higher than by liberals because conservatives generally have
>> more to give. That's why they're conservative. Also, liberals tend to
>> be more giving of their time to charity than conservatives. Whom do you
>> admire more - a rich conservative housewife who organizes a charity
>> ball or a middle-class liberal one who donates her time to the charity?
>>
>
> Do you have proof to support your assertion that liberals give more time
> to charity than conservatives?
>

Bert,

Its hand waving. He is a diplo wannabe. Those folks don't need facts.

Joe

Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:31:38
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Global Warming

whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:10:12
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:46:38
From: joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

bill-o wrote:
> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>
I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
state things have gone too far.

Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!

Joe

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:22:39
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net > wrote in message
news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> bill-o wrote:
>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>>
>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>>
> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
> state things have gone too far.
>
> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>
> Joe
>
More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 10:21:12
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 5-Dec-2006, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> >
> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)

Only in that it is an extreme. Left or right, extemism is a disorder.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 12:27:17
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

To: National Desk
Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis,
972-308-6481 or sean.tuffnell@ncpa.org
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor
at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National
Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special
hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing
examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared
reks.
"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that
study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about
one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week
the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public
Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the
warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on
me.
"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science
was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in
the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval
Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm
weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as
the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the
MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it
was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming
was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."
"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past
temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became
known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph.
"Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn
previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But
the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically,
even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies.
Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was
both warm and global in its extent.
"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of
global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an
irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with
global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a
result, the public has become vastly misinformed."
---
The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research
institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates
private solutions to public policy problems. NCPA depends on the
contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our
mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.
http://www.usnewswire.com/

Date: 07 Dec 2006 19:56:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:27:17 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that
>study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about
>one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week
>the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public
>Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the
>warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on
>me.
>"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science
>was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in
>the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval
>Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm
>weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as
>the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the
>MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it
>was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming
>was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

These two points really get to the point of the matter. First,
there's nothing unprecedented about a period of warming like the one
that is happening now. Second, there's absolutely no way to prove
that the current warming trend has anything to do with human activity.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:49:16
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>> state things have gone too far.
>>
>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>
>> Joe
>>
>More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)

Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the
political spectrum.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:47:34
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
>news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>
>> bill-o wrote:
>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>>>
>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>>>
>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>> state things have gone too far.
>>
>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>
>> Joe
>>
>More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>
Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
moderate. Certainly not a liberal.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:13:04
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
>> news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
>>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>>>>
>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>>> state things have gone too far.
>>>
>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>
> Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
> moderate. Certainly not a liberal.

Considered a moderate by who? Conservatives do not consider Ms. Snowe a
moderate we consider her a liberal. Liberal Republican, Democrat, they
are all liberal.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:16:00
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:13:04 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
>>>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>>>>>
>>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>>>> state things have gone too far.
>>>>
>>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>>
>> Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
>> moderate. Certainly not a liberal.
>
>Considered a moderate by who? Conservatives do not consider Ms. Snowe a
>moderate we consider her a liberal. Liberal Republican, Democrat, they
>are all liberal.

They are all ster than you too.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 10:15:58
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:8t2cn2ppa65fc84mdsblaqtgpkam6vh4gq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:13:04 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as
>>>>> fact
>>>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of
>>>>> the
>>>>> state things have gone too far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>>>
>>> Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
>>> moderate. Certainly not a liberal.
>>
>>Considered a moderate by who? Conservatives do not consider Ms. Snowe a
>>moderate we consider her a liberal. Liberal Republican, Democrat, they
>>are all liberal.
>
> They are all ster than you too.

Talk about not having an open mind.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:44:30
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:13:04 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
>>>>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>>>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>>>>> state things have gone too far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>> More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>>>
>>> Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
>>> moderate. Certainly not a liberal.
>> Considered a moderate by who? Conservatives do not consider Ms. Snowe a
>> moderate we consider her a liberal. Liberal Republican, Democrat, they
>> are all liberal.
>
> They are all ster than you too.

Really, what is your criteria for determining sts?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:20:59
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:86qbn2dncls58i71uaernpkqeeh6erh6v4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"joe" <joeh@NOSPAMwarwickDOT.net> wrote in message
>>news:OUkdh.26592$tb6.16196@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>> whatever your views on this subject, I hope you would find this sort of
>>>> conduct, from "leaders" no less, appalling.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
>>>>
>>> I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact
>>> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the
>>> state things have gone too far.
>>>
>>> Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior
>>> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. :-)
>>
> Olympia Snowe is a Republican senior Senator from Maine, considered a
> moderate. Certainly not a liberal.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:24:19
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>
By the extreme right.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>
> By the extreme right.

Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:28:55
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>>
>> By the extreme right.
>
>Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
>disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?

Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
that's rare.

I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
conservative side in financial affairs.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:46:02
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>>>
>>> By the extreme right.
>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
>
> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
> that's rare.
>
> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
> conservative side in financial affairs.
>

I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of government.

Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:48:44
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:46:02 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>>>>
>>>> By the extreme right.
>>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
>>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
>>
>> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
>> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
>> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
>> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
>> that's rare.
>>
>> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
>> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
>> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
>> conservative side in financial affairs.
>>
>
>I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of government.
>
No shit.

>Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>
In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean
much.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:00:30
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:46:02 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>>>>>
>>>>> By the extreme right.
>>>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
>>>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
>>> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
>>> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
>>> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
>>> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
>>> that's rare.
>>>
>>> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
>>> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
>>> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
>>> conservative side in financial affairs.
>>>
>> I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of government.
>>
> No shit.
>
>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>
> In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean
> much.

At least you are not disputing the fact that conservatives are more
generous with their money when it comes to charity than liberals. Kind
of brings new meaning to I got my now you get yours.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:08:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:00:30 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>Bobby Knight wrote:

>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>>
>> In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean
>> much.
>
>At least you are not disputing the fact that conservatives are more
>generous with their money when it comes to charity than liberals. Kind
>of brings new meaning to I got my now you get yours.
>
As usual you misconstrued my statement. Some conservatives are more
generous, some liberals are more generous. It certainly doesn't
change the "I got mine" of either area. Try not generalizing.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:27:35
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:08:09 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>As usual you misconstrued my statement. Some conservatives are more
>generous, some liberals are more generous. It certainly doesn't
>change the "I got mine" of either area. Try not generalizing.

"SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is
about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and
it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in
the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious
conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts
of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that
values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and
two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for
government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous
than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About
Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release
Nov. 24.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice
religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion
that the government should engage in income redistribution are the
most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government
entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's
tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write
checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with
enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but
also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal
health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic
growth.

All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach
when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10
years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably
would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less
than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours
and donated blood."

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:25:02
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:00:30 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>>>
>>> In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean
>>> much.
>> At least you are not disputing the fact that conservatives are more
>> generous with their money when it comes to charity than liberals. Kind
>> of brings new meaning to I got my now you get yours.
>>
> As usual you misconstrued my statement. Some conservatives are more
> generous, some liberals are more generous. It certainly doesn't
> change the "I got mine" of either area. Try not generalizing.

I am just following your lead.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 02:04:54
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Sparky" <biff@funco.com > wrote in message
news:UYGdnQeC3btg2OnYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>>
>> Thanks for the link. I am familiar with ITER and some related fusion
>> projects but I just don't think that this effort will be the long term
>> solution. While this effort may provide power for the grid, something
>> needs to be done to create small scale power sources for aircraft, local
>> surface transport, third world economies, etc. Battery technology will
>> improve but I doubt that it will reach the charge density needed.
>>
>> As I said, the answer is out there but invisible at the moment. The
>> next real breakthrough is never foreseen.
>
> Something like this perhaps:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061201180713.htm
>

Wow. That could turn into something huge. I wonder if the complex is
consumed in the reaction.

Scott

Date: 01 Dec 2006 04:20:23
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:WIMbh.39824$Fw5.11771@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Scott,
>
> Thanks for the link. I am familiar with ITER and some related fusion
> projects but I just don't think that this effort will be the long term
> solution. While this effort may provide power for the grid, something
> needs to be done to create small scale power sources for aircraft, local
> surface transport, third world economies, etc. Battery technology will
> improve but I doubt that it will reach the charge density needed.
>
> As I said, the answer is out there but invisible at the moment. The next
> real breakthrough is never foreseen.

Provoking the unforeseen is a tricky thing. All the obstacles preventing
fusion from solving the world's energy problems (such as delivery to remote
locations off the grid, or disposal of radioactive waste) could also be
whisked away by unforeseen breakthroughs. Nobody knows how things will
shape up in the long term. In the long term, we could be an extinct
species! Everything in that realm is speculative by its very nature.

Nevertheless, I'm more excited by the possibilities of fusion power than
some vague something emerging from the fog completely unexpected. The
history of profound science is the history of the completely unexpected and
unforeseeable, but it's hard to discuss the nature of such breakthroughs if
they aren't past occurences!

Scott

Date: 01 Dec 2006 04:50:34
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

S McFarlane wrote:

> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> news:WIMbh.39824$Fw5.11771@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>>
>>Scott,
>>
>>Thanks for the link. I am familiar with ITER and some related fusion
>>projects but I just don't think that this effort will be the long term
>>solution. While this effort may provide power for the grid, something
>>needs to be done to create small scale power sources for aircraft, local
>>surface transport, third world economies, etc. Battery technology will
>>improve but I doubt that it will reach the charge density needed.
>>
>>As I said, the answer is out there but invisible at the moment. The next
>>real breakthrough is never foreseen.
>
>
> Provoking the unforeseen is a tricky thing. All the obstacles preventing
> fusion from solving the world's energy problems (such as delivery to remote
> locations off the grid, or disposal of radioactive waste) could also be
> whisked away by unforeseen breakthroughs. Nobody knows how things will
> shape up in the long term. In the long term, we could be an extinct
> species! Everything in that realm is speculative by its very nature.
>
> Nevertheless, I'm more excited by the possibilities of fusion power than
> some vague something emerging from the fog completely unexpected. The
> history of profound science is the history of the completely unexpected and
> unforeseeable, but it's hard to discuss the nature of such breakthroughs if
> they aren't past occurences!
>
> Scott
>

I agree. Of the options visible today, fusion is the best bet and some
big money is already in play but far more will be needed.

As far as the future is concerned though, I would bet on the unexpected.
Consider that my paternal grandfather was a blacksmith, licensed by
the City of Brooklyn. At that time the priy energy sources in
Brooklyn and Manhattan were coal, charcoal and animals. He could not
have foreseen any of the things we take as commonplace today. The
nascent science was in place but the engineering needed to get done.

Fusion is one such as is, matter /anti-matter and as a stretch, vacuum
energy of the quantum physics kind. Malthus said we would starve and
along comes ammonia based fertilizers. Application of Mendel's
observations led to the Green Revolution. Such has been the history of
mankind, each time we approach the precipice an unknown Edison pops up.

I guess I am just an optimist.

Joe

Date: 01 Dec 2006 13:03:06
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:50:34 GMT, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org >
wrote:

>I agree. Of the options visible today, fusion is the best bet and some
>big money is already in play but far more will be needed.

Yep. But even if we replace all our power sources with
environmentally friendly power sources - our use of energy, our need
for roads, buildings, and farms, and simply our dominance of the
environment will continue to effect the world's ecology and climate.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 14:00:20
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:60a0n25q5k7g4v63grcutdau9vkl6b01oi@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:50:34 GMT, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org>
> wrote:
>
>>I agree. Of the options visible today, fusion is the best bet and some
>>big money is already in play but far more will be needed.
>
> Yep. But even if we replace all our power sources with
> environmentally friendly power sources - our use of energy, our need
> for roads, buildings, and farms, and simply our dominance of the
> environment will continue to effect the world's ecology and climate.

No question there. Although the big environmental question of the day is
mostly associated with the use of dirty energy, it must be remembered that
switching over to clean sources could make things worse. It would solve the
problem of carbon emissions, but how it would affect human behavior to have
a clean and bottomless source of energy is an open question.

Scott

Date: 30 Nov 2006 16:17:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30 Nov 2006 13:10:00 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> A consensus amongst them on such an issue is as
>a sociological fact, quite meaningful.

But there is no consensus.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:53:53
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2006 11:34:37 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >With respect to the case in question. No one is arguing that human
> >caused global warming isn't occurring.
>
> However, there are some people who argue that the human effect is so
> small that it makes no appreciable difference one way or the other in
> the naturally occurring cycles of climate change.
>
> In any case, the human effect is pure speculation and not a scientific
> fact.

There is no such thing as "scientific fact".

The issue is risk. Those who know the phenomena best say the risk is
great. The Supreme Court Justices are not questioning this. They are
questioning IF the action in the US would reduce that risk at all. Some
say such actions taken in the US would not reduce the risk at all.

The "speculation" is the musings on cycles and other such nonsense.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 16:33:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30 Nov 2006 12:53:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>The issue is risk. Those who know the phenomena best say the risk is
>great. The Supreme Court Justices are not questioning this. They are
>questioning IF the action in the US would reduce that risk at all. Some
>say such actions taken in the US would not reduce the risk at all.

This assumes that the cycles of climate change which include warming
periods are bad. These cycles have always occurred, so why are they
necessarily bad. There are many natural atmospheric phenomena that
are inconvenient for humans, but it's a step further to label them as
bad. Perhaps this negative reaction to the natural cycle of
temperature warming is just another example of man's inability to
accept nature as it is.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 16:22:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30 Nov 2006 12:53:53 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>> In any case, the human effect is pure speculation and not a scientific
>> fact.
>
>There is no such thing as "scientific fact".

Excellent, so we agree that the human effect on global warming is
speculation and not a scientific fact.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 16:11:42
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Global Warming

The Supremes are NOT ruling on the Global Warming in any way, shape, or
form. The only issue before the Court is whether the language of the various
EPA acts covers CO2. If EPA is required to do something about CO2, the court
battles have just begun as each and every act of the EPA will be contested
in the courts as either doing too much or not enough.

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1164920033.807179.86830@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 30 Nov 2006 11:34:37 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >With respect to the case in question. No one is arguing that human
>> >caused global warming isn't occurring.
>>
>> However, there are some people who argue that the human effect is so
>> small that it makes no appreciable difference one way or the other in
>> the naturally occurring cycles of climate change.
>>
>> In any case, the human effect is pure speculation and not a scientific
>> fact.
>
> There is no such thing as "scientific fact".
>
> The issue is risk. Those who know the phenomena best say the risk is
> great. The Supreme Court Justices are not questioning this. They are
> questioning IF the action in the US would reduce that risk at all. Some
> say such actions taken in the US would not reduce the risk at all.
>
> The "speculation" is the musings on cycles and other such nonsense.
>

Date: 30 Nov 2006 16:34:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:11:42 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>The Supremes are NOT ruling on the Global Warming in any way, shape, or
>form. The only issue before the Court is whether the language of the various
>EPA acts covers CO2. If EPA is required to do something about CO2, the court
>battles have just begun as each and every act of the EPA will be contested
>in the courts as either doing too much or not enough.

And it might not be settled until the next ice age.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:24:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2006 11:34:37 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >With respect to the case in question. No one is arguing that human
> >caused global warming isn't occurring.
>
> However, there are some people who argue that the human effect is so
> small that it makes no appreciable difference one way or the other in
> the naturally occurring cycles of climate change.
>
> In any case, the human effect is pure speculation and not a scientific
> fact.

Gee, Jack, you just revel in being wrong, don't you? Atmospheric GHG
concentrations are measurable and are known to have been increasing for
about the last century. That is a scientific fact. Ambient global
tempreatures are also measurable and they, too, are known to have been
rising more or less proportionate to and concomitant with the increase
in GHG concentrations. That, too, is a scientific fact. The
overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced that A had
led to B. Those whom you refer to as arguing that human activities have
no appreciable affect are in the tiny minority. And so are you.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 16:10:23
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 30 Nov 2006 12:24:16 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>Atmospheric GHG
>concentrations are measurable and are known to have been increasing for
>about the last century. That is a scientific fact. Ambient global
>tempreatures are also measurable and they, too, are known to have been
>rising more or less proportionate to and concomitant with the increase
>in GHG concentrations. That, too, is a scientific fact

I don't dispute either fact. However, this in no way proves that CO2
emissions are the cause of global warming. First, the correlation is
weak and global temperature has both risen and fallen in the past
during periods of stable CO2 levels.

BTW, the correlation between solar activity and global temperature is
much stronger and had been demonstrated over several cycles. Thus the
evidence for the sun's activity effect on climate is much stronger
than for CO2 levels. And, it is also a scientific fact that the sun
is presently going through an active cycle.

In any case, read the following.

"A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves
nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in
the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past
century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and
global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they
typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply
causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish
the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's
temperature history.

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of
time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To
establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the
presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this
relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases
and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are
met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are
unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly
produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the
past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial
inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2
concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature,
they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were
also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged,
while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2
content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually
rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years
provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in
the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming."

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/position/globalwarming.jsp

Date: 30 Nov 2006 20:44:14
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

John B. wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>>On 30 Nov 2006 11:34:37 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With respect to the case in question. No one is arguing that human
>>>caused global warming isn't occurring.
>>
>>However, there are some people who argue that the human effect is so
>>small that it makes no appreciable difference one way or the other in
>>the naturally occurring cycles of climate change.
>>
>>In any case, the human effect is pure speculation and not a scientific
>>fact.
>
>
>
> Gee, Jack, you just revel in being wrong, don't you? Atmospheric GHG
> concentrations are measurable and are known to have been increasing for
> about the last century. That is a scientific fact. Ambient global
> tempreatures are also measurable and they, too, are known to have been
> rising more or less proportionate to and concomitant with the increase
> in GHG concentrations. That, too, is a scientific fact. The
> overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced that A had
> led to B. Those whom you refer to as arguing that human activities have
> no appreciable affect are in the tiny minority. And so are you.
>
Any first year student of statistics, in fact many 8th graders, will
tell you that correlation does NOT imply causation. Your argument is
resting on a very poor foundation.

The links have not been firmly established, nor the magnitude of effect,
nor the interrelated chemistry.

Just so we are clear, there is something happening, human population is
adding to the heat effect but we (We, as in most scientists and other
human beings capable of critical thinking.) don't know the scale of the
effect nor what an appropriate response is yet.

I know what you read a lot because you said so, but do you understand?

Joe

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:35:14
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Bobby Knight wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
> >>>>
> >>> By the extreme right.
> >> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
> >> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
> >
> > Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
> > wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
> > staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
> > person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
> > that's rare.
> >
> > I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
> > In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
> > lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
> > conservative side in financial affairs.
> >
>
> I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of government.
>
> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.

If so, it's because they have more.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:50:22
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>>>>>
>>>>> By the extreme right.
>>>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
>>>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
>>> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
>>> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
>>> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
>>> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
>>> that's rare.
>>>
>>> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
>>> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
>>> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
>>> conservative side in financial affairs.
>>>
>> I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of government.
>>
>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>
> If so, it's because they have more.
>

Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...

Date: 06 Dec 2006 03:02:43
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:14:05 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:20:59 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Snowe is the RINO Poster Child.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the extreme right.
>>>>> Why don't you moderate your thinking Bobby. You seem to lump any who
>>>>> disagrees with you in the extreme right camp. Why?
>>>> Probably because there are more vocal right wing ultras here than left
>>>> wing. Most of my friends are conservative, but they don't match the
>>>> staunch, non-thinking, blind followers that I see here. The only
>>>> person that I've seen that even tries to see both sides is Tex, and
>>>> that's rare.
>>>>
>>>> I tend to be much more toward the middle than either extreme.
>>>> In fact, I believe that moderate is a very good word for my beliefs. I
>>>> lean to liberalism when it comes to personal rights, and to the
>>>> conservative side in financial affairs.
>>>>
>>> I am conservative in personal rights and financial affairs of
>>> government.
>>>
>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>
>> If so, it's because they have more.
>>
>
> Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...

LOL

J

Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:53:28
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:50:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:

>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>
>> If so, it's because they have more.
>>
>
>Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...

Inheritance.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:20:45
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:50:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>
>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>> If so, it's because they have more.
>>>
>> Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...
>
> Inheritance.

The side of my family that has the money lives to their 90's and and in
come cases to 100. I'll be getting SS by the time I inherit any money.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:12:06
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:50:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. wrote:
>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>
>>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than
>>>>> liberals.
>>>> If so, it's because they have more.
>>>>
>>> Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...
>>
>> Inheritance.
>
> The side of my family that has the money lives to their 90's and and
> in come cases to 100. I'll be getting SS by the time I inherit any
> money.

Unless you help your own cause. *

* oops; I said too much already....

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 06 Dec 2006 09:57:16
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:20:45 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:50:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. wrote:
>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>
>>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>>> If so, it's because they have more.
>>>>
>>> Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...
>>
>> Inheritance.
>
>The side of my family that has the money lives to their 90's and and in
>come cases to 100. I'll be getting SS by the time I inherit any money.

My sib and I didn't have an inheritance.. Ergo, well...figure it out
for yourself.
___,
\o

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:12:23
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:20:45 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:50:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>>>>> If so, it's because they have more.
>>>>>
>>>> Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...
>>> Inheritance.
>> The side of my family that has the money lives to their 90's and and in
>> come cases to 100. I'll be getting SS by the time I inherit any money.
>
> My sib and I didn't have an inheritance.. Ergo, well...figure it out
> for yourself.

Make wiser parental choices next time.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:15:15
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> My sib and I didn't have an inheritance.. Ergo, well...figure it
>> out for yourself.
>
> Make wiser parental choices next time.

He stopped sleeping with them as soon as he found out they were poor.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 06 Dec 2006 10:23:22
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:m0qdn2dcu4g1b3l15mepih2g194k4ss86j@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:20:45 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:50:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than
>>>>>> liberals.
>>>>> If so, it's because they have more.
>>>>>
>>>> Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...
>>>
>>> Inheritance.
>>
>>The side of my family that has the money lives to their 90's and and in
>>come cases to 100. I'll be getting SS by the time I inherit any money.
>
> My sib and I didn't have an inheritance.. Ergo, well...figure it out
> for yourself.
>
So only conservatives get inheritances? None here either Bobby, figgure it
out.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:44:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Global Warming

On 5 Dec 2006 18:35:14 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
>
>If so, it's because they have more.

Not really. It includes things like volunteer time and donating blood.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:34:38
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2006 18:35:14 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than
>>> liberals.
>>
>> If so, it's because they have more.
>
>
> Not really. It includes things like volunteer time and donating blood.

Republicans have more blood than Democrats. I believe every Republican
should be required to give a pint of blood to a Democrat.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:44:26
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

John B. wrote:
> If so, it's because they have more.

When it comes to social programs; Americans should be allowed to vote on
whether or not they should be created or terminated. Further; the more
taxes you pay, the more votes you should get. Someone who has never paid
taxes should not get to vote to increase my taxes to give them more
freebies.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:52:53
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> If so, it's because they have more.
>
>
> When it comes to social programs; Americans should be allowed to vote on
> whether or not they should be created or terminated. Further; the more
> taxes you pay, the more votes you should get. Someone who has never paid
> taxes should not get to vote to increase my taxes to give them more
> freebies.

I would give everyone a single vote to start with but, depending upon
your contributions to society, the more money you pay in taxes, the more
additional votes you get.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:34:06
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Global Warming

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> If so, it's because they have more.
>>
>>
>> When it comes to social programs; Americans should be allowed to
>> vote on whether or not they should be created or terminated. Further;
>> the more taxes you pay, the more votes you should get. Someone who has
>> never paid taxes should not get to vote to increase
>> my taxes to give them more freebies.
>
> I would give everyone a single vote to start with but, depending upon
> your contributions to society, the more money you pay in taxes, the
> more additional votes you get.

That works.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:49:25
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Global Warming

"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:tJGdnXFGi6BUcvDYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> The_Professor wrote:
>> I got this email from the ESA, which I consider to be pretty solid with
>> respect to the scientific view on the issue. As it seems to be an issue
>> of concern, people may as well know what they are talking about when
>> they talk about what science has to say:
>>
>> The Ecological Society of America
>>
>> For Immediate Release: 29 November 2006
>> Contact: Nadine Lymn (202) 833-8773 x205; nadine@esa.org
>> or Annie Drinkard (202) 833-8773 x211; annie@esa.org
>>
>> ESA Statement on Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. Environmental Protection
>> Agency
>> The Certainty of Global Climate Change
>>
>> In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
>> Agency's (EPA) argument in the U.S. Supreme Court
>> case, Massachusetts et al. vs. U.S. EPA et al.
>> that it would not regulate carbon dioxide due in
>> part to scientific uncertainty, Alan Covich,
>> President of the Ecological Society of America,
>> the nation's premier scientific society of
>> ecological scientists, expressed dismay over the
>> agency's disregard for the widespread scientific
>> consensus on the facts and effects of climate
>> change. Covich said, "ESA strongly supports the
>> scientific arguments regarding the certainty of
>> climate change made by Massachusetts et al. as legitimate and
>> accurate."
>>
>
> Are they going to outlaw exhaling or will there be a tax on breathing now?
>
I bet ESA is also part of the lawsuit. Alarmists unwilling to listen to the
other side.