| |
Main
Date: 15 Nov 2006 15:32:16
From: multi
Subject: OT: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Gas prices started dropping about six weeks before the election, and
the right wing spin machine, from Fox News to Limbaugh, trumpeted it
as proof of Bush's economic genius. It was yet another economic
benchmark that was the best in five years --- in other words, worse
than any time in history, except Bush's first term. By an amazing
coincidence, prices bottomed out on election day, and started going up
the next day. In my town, they are up 15 cents a gallon in the last
week.
Do I think Bush ordered the oil companies to lower gas prices for the
election? No, that would require some planning. Do I think Cheney or
Rove ordered it? Maybe. Do I think the oil companies conspired to do
it, whether or not they were told to? Absolutely. They know that the
Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
Fortune 500 companies.
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 19:23:40
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
multi wrote:
>They know that the
> Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
> raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
> Fortune 500 companies.
Dems do dat, den I'd declare.......
A job well done!!
I remember with fondness some reform actually happening on Capitol
Hill, around '95, with badly needed welfare reform. Perhaps a similar
atmosphere will take place this time around.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 21:32:03
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:aa8nl211qjsdsclorv4a5sg8qupoq7rhf2@4ax.com...
> Gas prices started dropping about six weeks before the election, and
> the right wing spin machine, from Fox News to Limbaugh, trumpeted it
> as proof of Bush's economic genius. It was yet another economic
> benchmark that was the best in five years --- in other words, worse
> than any time in history, except Bush's first term. By an amazing
> coincidence, prices bottomed out on election day, and started going up
> the next day. In my town, they are up 15 cents a gallon in the last
> week.
>
> Do I think Bush ordered the oil companies to lower gas prices for the
> election? No, that would require some planning. Do I think Cheney or
> Rove ordered it? Maybe. Do I think the oil companies conspired to do
> it, whether or not they were told to? Absolutely. They know that the
> Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
> raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
> Fortune 500 companies.
Yeah: punish the most productive! Makes tons of sense. Create a world of
takers/dependents/welfare receivers. And be sure to blame the doers when
they don't bail out the bums. Same as the world blames us for the African
genocides and starvations.
Ever read "The Tragedy of American Compassion" by Marvin Olasky?
It's a great read.
Be sure to include Winfrey and Gates in your condemnation of the rich.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 20:58:38
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:x4Q6h.819$sF.513@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Yeah: punish the most productive! Makes tons of sense. Create a world of
> takers/dependents/welfare receivers. And be sure to blame the doers when
> they don't bail out the bums. Same as the world blames us for the African
> genocides and starvations.
>
> Ever read "The Tragedy of American Compassion" by Marvin Olasky?
>
> It's a great read.
>
> Be sure to include Winfrey and Gates in your condemnation of the rich.
Has your web-site been slow lately George?
Last time I looked it had more porn than golf content, and you didn't seem
to like the non-golf posts. Why not extend the same here? Keep to golf.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 10:41:35
From: multi
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:32:03 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:aa8nl211qjsdsclorv4a5sg8qupoq7rhf2@4ax.com...
>> Gas prices started dropping about six weeks before the election, and
>> the right wing spin machine, from Fox News to Limbaugh, trumpeted it
>> as proof of Bush's economic genius. It was yet another economic
>> benchmark that was the best in five years --- in other words, worse
>> than any time in history, except Bush's first term. By an amazing
>> coincidence, prices bottomed out on election day, and started going up
>> the next day. In my town, they are up 15 cents a gallon in the last
>> week.
>>
>> Do I think Bush ordered the oil companies to lower gas prices for the
>> election? No, that would require some planning. Do I think Cheney or
>> Rove ordered it? Maybe. Do I think the oil companies conspired to do
>> it, whether or not they were told to? Absolutely. They know that the
>> Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
>> raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
>> Fortune 500 companies.
>
>Yeah: punish the most productive! Makes tons of sense.
LOL, those dirty Dems and their punitive vendetta against the most
productive members of our society --- the children of the very rich.
That's why Bush has fought harder to eliminate the inheritance tax
than to increase port security. Priorities, you know.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 13:24:09
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
George Hibbard wrote:
<snip >
> Yeah: punish the most productive! Makes tons of sense. Create a world of
> takers/dependents/welfare receivers. And be sure to blame the doers when
> they don't bail out the bums. Same as the world blames us for the African
> genocides and starvations.
<snip >
I believe the premise is that global warming, caused by greenhouse gas
emissions, has already influenced global weather patterns (that seems
plausible to me). When you were a little boy, you probably peed in your
friends' wading pools and claimed there would be no consequence from your
actions.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 11:00:51
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:ZDZ6h.7380$5P2.4697@trnddc02...
> George Hibbard wrote:
> <snip>
> > Yeah: punish the most productive! Makes tons of sense. Create a world
of
> > takers/dependents/welfare receivers. And be sure to blame the doers
when
> > they don't bail out the bums. Same as the world blames us for the
African
> > genocides and starvations.
> <snip>
>
>
> I believe the premise is that global warming, caused by greenhouse gas
> emissions, has already influenced global weather patterns (that seems
> plausible to me). When you were a little boy, you probably peed in your
> friends' wading pools and claimed there would be no consequence from your
> actions.
It seems plausible, but they just haven't been able to prove it. Natural
cycles seems plausible too. Do you know what the current worst polluter in
Washington State is?
Mount Saint Helen
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 01:29:56
From:
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2006 05:43:47 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:
>
> >> >What do you mean by temporarily, you mean that there are no Norse in
> >> >Iceland now?
> >>
> >> You truncated my sentence.
> >
> >I snipped it for brevity but I ask you again what do you mean by
> >temorarily?
>
> They were expanding at great rate for a while, then their expansionism
> stopped, and even dropped back.
And when was that supposed to have taken place?
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 10:41:42
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163697229.190342.143400@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> prove it.
> >
> > Actually, they have. There is a mountain of scientific evidence to
> > support it.
> > But even if you refuse to believe (for whatever reason) that reducing
> > these emissions will help save the planet, nobody has argued a down
> > side to doing that. Why NOT try to reduce these potentially harmful
> > gases? Making our environment cleaner is always a good thing.
> >
> I supposed these guys are all idiots as compared to a genius such as
> yourself.
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.warming.ap/index.html
You're comparing apples to oranges here, Mike. The scientists in this
article aren't arguing for increased emissions of greenhouse gases,
which are not pollutants. They're suggesting that increased emissions
of other gases, which are pollutants, could counteract the effect of
the GHGs.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 11:42:31
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:aa8nl211qjsdsclorv4a5sg8qupoq7rhf2@4ax.com...
> Gas prices started dropping about six weeks before the election, and
> the right wing spin machine, from Fox News to Limbaugh, trumpeted it
> as proof of Bush's economic genius. It was yet another economic
> benchmark that was the best in five years --- in other words, worse
> than any time in history, except Bush's first term. By an amazing
> coincidence, prices bottomed out on election day, and started going up
> the next day. In my town, they are up 15 cents a gallon in the last
> week.
>
> Do I think Bush ordered the oil companies to lower gas prices for the
> election? No, that would require some planning. Do I think Cheney or
> Rove ordered it? Maybe. Do I think the oil companies conspired to do
> it, whether or not they were told to? Absolutely. They know that the
> Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
> raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
> Fortune 500 companies.
You have no understanding of the world oil markets.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 10:35:26
From: multi
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:42:31 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:aa8nl211qjsdsclorv4a5sg8qupoq7rhf2@4ax.com...
>> Gas prices started dropping about six weeks before the election, and
>> the right wing spin machine, from Fox News to Limbaugh, trumpeted it
>> as proof of Bush's economic genius. It was yet another economic
>> benchmark that was the best in five years --- in other words, worse
>> than any time in history, except Bush's first term. By an amazing
>> coincidence, prices bottomed out on election day, and started going up
>> the next day. In my town, they are up 15 cents a gallon in the last
>> week.
>>
>> Do I think Bush ordered the oil companies to lower gas prices for the
>> election? No, that would require some planning. Do I think Cheney or
>> Rove ordered it? Maybe. Do I think the oil companies conspired to do
>> it, whether or not they were told to? Absolutely. They know that the
>> Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
>> raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
>> Fortune 500 companies.
>
>You have no understanding of the world oil markets.
World oil prices are a different question, but they have been fairly
steady for the last month. I'm talking about retail US gas prices.
But if you want to talk about wholesale oil prices, explain why they
have more than quadrupled since Clinton was in office, yet the oil
companies are still allowed to pump oil out of US federal lands for
nothing, or next to nothing. And then they get a huge tax subsidy on
top of that.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 15:56:52
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Your Patriot Act at Work
|
A) Prior to 9/11, the Feds and the airlines believed the best hijack
response was to cooperate and get the plane on the ground as soon as
possible. That strategy is but one of many things to go down the drain after
9/11.
B) Flight attendants are the front line troops correctly believing they are
at great risk since the 9/11 hijackers got the pilots to open cockpit door
by threatening to kill the flight attendants.
C) The flight attendant is the accuser not the judge and jury which isn't
any different than any of us accusing somebody of a crime in our
neighborhood.
D) The guy is lucky that other passengers didn't beat the shit out of him
which has unfortunately happened to unruly or threatening passengers.
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1163708078.633799.11990@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:49:29 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>Are you insinuating that people have the Constitutional right to
>> >>commit sex acts in public and threaten flight attendants?
>> >
>> >No. But I am very afraid when "National Security" is used as an
>> >excuse to arrest people for other reasons.
>>
>> Excuse? It was always illegal to threaten a flight attendant.
>
> I think in general flight attendants have way too much power and the
> penalties are completely out of line for shouting at one, disobeying
> one, touching one compared to what the penalties are for doing the same
> things to most other people (cops, etc.) excluded. The same thing with
> police dogs. Most people will kill a dog that is attacking them if they
> possibley can. But if it's a police dog, you might as well have killed
> the handler. A dog is a dog (not a person)... even it it is used for
> police work and it should be just that simple.
>
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 09:13:49
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
the Moderator wrote:
> > I believe the premise is that global warming, caused by greenhouse gas
> > emissions, has already influenced global weather patterns (that seems
> > plausible to me).>
> It seems plausible, but they just haven't been able to prove it.
Actually, they have. There is a mountain of scientific evidence to
support it.
But even if you refuse to believe (for whatever reason) that reducing
these emissions will help save the planet, nobody has argued a down
side to doing that. Why NOT try to reduce these potentially harmful
gases? Making our environment cleaner is always a good thing.
It's a shame that some issues like this are constantly promoted by
Democrats and as a result many Republicans automatically oppose them.
Cleaning the environment should be a priority for everyone, not just Al
Gore.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 11:50:10
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163697229.190342.143400@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
prove it.
>
> Actually, they have. There is a mountain of scientific evidence to
> support it.
> But even if you refuse to believe (for whatever reason) that reducing
> these emissions will help save the planet, nobody has argued a down
> side to doing that. Why NOT try to reduce these potentially harmful
> gases? Making our environment cleaner is always a good thing.
>
I supposed these guys are all idiots as compared to a genius such as
yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.warming.ap/index.html
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 13:31:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:50:10 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1163697229.190342.143400@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>prove it.
>>
>> Actually, they have. There is a mountain of scientific evidence to
>> support it.
>> But even if you refuse to believe (for whatever reason) that reducing
>> these emissions will help save the planet, nobody has argued a down
>> side to doing that. Why NOT try to reduce these potentially harmful
>> gases? Making our environment cleaner is always a good thing.
>>
>I supposed these guys are all idiots as compared to a genius such as
>yourself.
>http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.warming.ap/index.html
>
>
Scientists blame sun for global warming
The Sun is more active than it has ever been in the last 300 years
Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the
sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association
for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present
warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.
The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not
the constant star it might seem.
Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall
brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity
rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.
And individual cycles can be more or less active.
The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.
That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant
cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that
are most often blamed.
The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in
global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 -
earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun
Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in
the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.
They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend
significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells
should be feared more than global warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 00:50:18
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 16 Nov 2006 09:13:49 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>But even if you refuse to believe (for whatever reason) that reducing
>these emissions will help save the planet, nobody has argued a down
>side to doing that. Why NOT try to reduce these potentially harmful
>gases? Making our environment cleaner is always a good thing.
While reducing these emissions will help slow down some of the effects
we are having on the planet - as long as we keep building more farms,
roads, & buildings, cutting down forests, changing water flow, and
probably over fishing - the problem will continue to grow.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 13:25:30
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:42:31 -0600, MnMikew wrote:
>
> > You have no understanding of the world oil markets.
>
> And you do. Fantastic. Explain why the price of gas has fluctuated so much
> the last month or so while the price per barrel of crude has been fairly
> steady. Take your time.
Sure...just what a stupid person like I know though.
duh....crude oil is a commodity
duh....the price fluctuates second to second based on demand
duh....if there isn't a lot of demand at some point, the price goes
down
duh...if for some reason someone wants to buy a lot at some point in
time, the price goes up at that point in time
duh...if the high demand does not continue, the price goes back down
duh...the price goes up and down in response to demand.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 11:01:19
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:aa8nl211qjsdsclorv4a5sg8qupoq7rhf2@4ax.com...
> Gas prices started dropping about six weeks before the election, and
> the right wing spin machine, from Fox News to Limbaugh, trumpeted it
> as proof of Bush's economic genius. It was yet another economic
> benchmark that was the best in five years --- in other words, worse
> than any time in history, except Bush's first term. By an amazing
> coincidence, prices bottomed out on election day, and started going up
> the next day. In my town, they are up 15 cents a gallon in the last
> week.
>
> Do I think Bush ordered the oil companies to lower gas prices for the
> election? No, that would require some planning. Do I think Cheney or
> Rove ordered it? Maybe. Do I think the oil companies conspired to do
> it, whether or not they were told to? Absolutely. They know that the
> Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
> raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
> Fortune 500 companies.
I love the smell of a conspiracy theory in the morning.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:29:26
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:eo-dnVDIWJT9BMHYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:aa8nl211qjsdsclorv4a5sg8qupoq7rhf2@4ax.com...
>> Gas prices started dropping about six weeks before the election, and
>> the right wing spin machine, from Fox News to Limbaugh, trumpeted it
>> as proof of Bush's economic genius. It was yet another economic
>> benchmark that was the best in five years --- in other words, worse
>> than any time in history, except Bush's first term. By an amazing
>> coincidence, prices bottomed out on election day, and started going up
>> the next day. In my town, they are up 15 cents a gallon in the last
>> week.
>>
>> Do I think Bush ordered the oil companies to lower gas prices for the
>> election? No, that would require some planning. Do I think Cheney or
>> Rove ordered it? Maybe. Do I think the oil companies conspired to do
>> it, whether or not they were told to? Absolutely. They know that the
>> Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
>> raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
>> Fortune 500 companies.
>
> I love the smell of a conspiracy theory in the morning.
>
When I commented on this last month I pointed out how early and large the
drop was (it got even larger - way beyond any historical pattern) and I
predicted that the price would rise starting the week after the election.
During the price drop, all the normal things that the pundits blamed
increasing gas prices on were ignored (threats by OPEC, threats on Oil
fields in Saudi Arabia, etc). Now after the elections, with no new oil
specific news, with two months before the Dems take control of Congress -
the price is on the rise and the excuse of the day is that Dems might take
away tax breaks.
Sometimes where there is smoke - there is fire. But we are not likely to
ever know. I don't think this was some broad based, centrally directed
"conspiracy" - I think it was a collection of individuals and companies each
working for their perceived individual good - and collectively creating the
right end-result.
Oh. It didn't matter who won/lost the election in terms of the price - it
was always going to go back up after the election.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 15:48:46
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in message
news:455ca001@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> When I commented on this last month I pointed out how early and large the
> drop was (it got even larger - way beyond any historical pattern) and I
> predicted that the price would rise starting the week after the election.
>
> During the price drop, all the normal things that the pundits blamed
> increasing gas prices on were ignored (threats by OPEC, threats on Oil
> fields in Saudi Arabia, etc). Now after the elections, with no new oil
> specific news, with two months before the Dems take control of Congress -
> the price is on the rise and the excuse of the day is that Dems might take
> away tax breaks.
>
> Sometimes where there is smoke - there is fire. But we are not likely to
> ever know. I don't think this was some broad based, centrally directed
> "conspiracy" - I think it was a collection of individuals and companies
each
> working for their perceived individual good - and collectively creating
the
> right end-result.
>
> Oh. It didn't matter who won/lost the election in terms of the price - it
> was always going to go back up after the election.
Gas prices are the same around here.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 17:39:49
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:c9ydnSoaF-UjQcHYnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
> Gas prices are the same around here.
>
Plate of beans and a can of Bud?
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 19:31:32
From:
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:48:46 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>Gas prices are the same around here.
>
Where do you live ... Dubai?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 12:53:44
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
<annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:fm0ql2h5ddo0el2d6h0i1jvrcn0kfbhvb1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:48:46 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Gas prices are the same around here.
> >
> Where do you live ... Dubai?
>
>
Seriously, where are gas prices meaningfully higher now vs. election day? A
local Exxon station on election day was selling gas for $2.19 (NC is a
pretty high gas tax state). Yesterday it was the same thing - $2.19. Hasn't
moved a nickel one way or the other in a month.
dave
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 23:20:09
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> .... Same as the world blames us for the African
> genocides and starvations.
>
Which parts of the world blame the USA for that?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 10:57:40
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163661609.566480.158330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Hibbard wrote:
> > .... Same as the world blames us for the African
> > genocides and starvations.
> >
>
> Which parts of the world blame the USA for that?
The liberal part.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 00:47:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:57:40 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>> > .... Same as the world blames us for the African
>> > genocides and starvations.
>> Which parts of the world blame the USA for that?
>
>The liberal part.
Except when the blame is pointed towards President Clinton.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 16:08:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2006 12:43:15 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Jack Hollis wrote:
> >>
> >> Scientists blame sun for global warming
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm
> >
> >Got anything newer than 8 years old to share?
> >Perhaps you missed the date of that article: February 13, 1998
>
>
>
>
> The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
>
> By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
> (Filed: 18/07/2004)
>
> Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter
> because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the
> past 1,000 years, according to new research.
>
> A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing
> radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate
> changes.
>
> Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for
> Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research,
> said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and
> may now be affecting global temperatures.
>
> "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few
> hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -
> in the last 100 to 150 years."
That's it. It's settled. The debate's over. All the science -- and I
mean ALL of it -- that points to greenhouse gas emissions as
contributing to global warming is hereby proven wrong by these two
scientists. Now, aren't all you hippie environmental alarmists
embarrassed?
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 15:47:51
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
John B. wrote:
> > Not necessarily. If you pay $100,000 for a beach house, then 40 years
> later leave it to your kids when its value has ballooned to $5 million,
> the $4.9 million gain in value isn't taxed. But if you sell it, you
> have to pay a capital gains tax.
Meanwhile, your property taxes have continued to rise as well.
Many senior citizens in my area have found themsleves being priced out
of their homes that they've owned for 40 years due to the escalating
property taxes caused by urban sprawl.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 22:10:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 16 Nov 2006 15:47:51 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>Meanwhile, your property taxes have continued to rise as well.
>Many senior citizens in my area have found themsleves being priced out
>of their homes that they've owned for 40 years due to the escalating
>property taxes caused by urban sprawl.
I think that's what a reverse mortgage is for.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 06:29:15
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 16-Nov-2006, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2006 15:47:51 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Meanwhile, your property taxes have continued to rise as well.
> >Many senior citizens in my area have found themsleves being priced out
> >of their homes that they've owned for 40 years due to the escalating
> >property taxes caused by urban sprawl.
>
> I think that's what a reverse mortgage is for.
Try and get one for under 10% of home value up front. It is a last resort
not an answer.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 10:28:25
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163720871.218099.324230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Meanwhile, your property taxes have continued to rise as well.
> Many senior citizens in my area have found themsleves being priced out
> of their homes that they've owned for 40 years due to the escalating
> property taxes caused by urban sprawl.
It really sucks when the value of your property goes up four times what you
paid for it.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:55:46
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: OT: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
multi wrote:
> Gas prices started dropping about six weeks before the election, and
> the right wing spin machine, from Fox News to Limbaugh, trumpeted it
> as proof of Bush's economic genius. It was yet another economic
> benchmark that was the best in five years --- in other words, worse
> than any time in history, except Bush's first term. By an amazing
> coincidence, prices bottomed out on election day, and started going up
> the next day. In my town, they are up 15 cents a gallon in the last
> week.
>
> Do I think Bush ordered the oil companies to lower gas prices for the
> election? No, that would require some planning. Do I think Cheney or
> Rove ordered it? Maybe. Do I think the oil companies conspired to do
> it, whether or not they were told to? Absolutely. They know that the
> Dems will end the gravy train of huge tax subsidies while they are
> raking in record profits. Welfare reform should begin with the
> Fortune 500 companies.
Conspiracy theorists are a real hoot. No investigation of the issues or
anything, just an ad hoc conspiracy. If I had the bucks, I'd buy a
black helicopter and just fly it around for the fun of it...and no
doubt instigate various theories as to why that helicopter is flying
around!
After Katrina, the government relaxed a lot of the restrictions and
requirements regarding grades of gasoline the oil companies had to
produce. This lowered cost significantly. There may be other factors,
but the requirement for certain amounts of variuos grades to be
produced in various states added a lot to the costs. They did this to
make maximal use of the lowered supply of crude oil...which continues.
When the supply goes back up, the restrictions will go back on, and the
price will go up again...no doubt due to a conspiracy by dastardy oil
companies to steal the income of the noble working man!
Or at least thats what I believe of what I've seen!
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 00:57:39
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 16 Nov 2006 12:55:46 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>Conspiracy theorists are a real hoot. No investigation of the issues or
>anything, just an ad hoc conspiracy. If I had the bucks, I'd buy a
>black helicopter and just fly it around for the fun of it...and no
>doubt instigate various theories as to why that helicopter is flying
>around!
Conspiracy theorists believe in some rulers with a competency I just
don't see in real life.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:55:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> multi wrote:
> >> LOL, those dirty Dems and their punitive vendetta against the most
> > productive members of our society --- the children of the very rich.
> > That's why Bush has fought harder to eliminate the inheritance tax
> > than to increase port security. Priorities, you know.
>
> I'm a flaming liberal, but even I believe that the inheritance tax is
> stupid.
> Same goes for gift taxes. That money has already been taxed multiple
> times.
Not necessarily. If you pay $100,000 for a beach house, then 40 years
later leave it to your kids when its value has ballooned to $5 million,
the $4.9 million gain in value isn't taxed. But if you sell it, you
have to pay a capital gains tax.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 16:39:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 16 Nov 2006 12:55:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Not necessarily. If you pay $100,000 for a beach house, then 40 years
>later leave it to your kids when its value has ballooned to $5 million,
>the $4.9 million gain in value isn't taxed. But if you sell it, you
>have to pay a capital gains tax.
And if your children sell it that have to pay capital gains tax.
All estate/inheritance taxes should be abolished.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 17:38:34
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:uhmpl2p4bd4eqlr4bqinahto60snmg66h6@4ax.com...
> On 16 Nov 2006 12:55:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Not necessarily. If you pay $100,000 for a beach house, then 40 years
>>later leave it to your kids when its value has ballooned to $5 million,
>>the $4.9 million gain in value isn't taxed. But if you sell it, you
>>have to pay a capital gains tax.
>
>
> And if your children sell it that have to pay capital gains tax.
>
> All estate/inheritance taxes should be abolished.
If you sell it before you die, you would have to pay capital gains - so why
should your death allow the avoidance of the tax? It isn't double
taxation - and for 99% of us it doesn't apply because the exemption is high
enough we never have to worry.
In any case. I have no problem with lower taxes. But you need to pay for
it by cutting spending at the same time. And this particular tax isn't
going to stimulate the economy - so it is pretty far down the list as far as
I am concerned.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 09:43:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:38:34 -0500, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote:
>
>If you sell it before you die, you would have to pay capital gains - so why
>should your death allow the avoidance of the tax? It isn't double
>taxation - and for 99% of us it doesn't apply because the exemption is high
>enough we never have to worry.
The issue is that you're not selling it, you're giving it to your
kids. So there have been no capital gains realized by either you or
your kids. Why should you be expected to pay taxes on money you
haven't gotten yet?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 10:16:22
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:rbirl2lm1176qf02q5h73kqk0d4o68sugp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:38:34 -0500, "FredK"
> <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>If you sell it before you die, you would have to pay capital gains - so
>>why
>>should your death allow the avoidance of the tax? It isn't double
>>taxation - and for 99% of us it doesn't apply because the exemption is
>>high
>>enough we never have to worry.
>
> The issue is that you're not selling it, you're giving it to your
> kids. So there have been no capital gains realized by either you or
> your kids. Why should you be expected to pay taxes on money you
> haven't gotten yet?
You can't give it to your kids while you are alive for free *either* except
in small yearly chunks.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 16:01:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:16:22 -0500, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote:
>You can't give it to your kids while you are alive for free *either* except
>in small yearly chunks.
You can give your house away to your kids if you want for "love and
affection."
In fact, this is desirable because, should you require long term care
in your golden years, you can end up losing your house in the process
and you're kids wont get it. This should be done well in advance
because Medicare wont allow you to divest your assets after you've
been deemed to need long term care.
In addition, each parent can gift up to $10,000 to each child every
year tax free.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 00:56:11
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:39:10 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>>Not necessarily. If you pay $100,000 for a beach house, then 40 years
>>later leave it to your kids when its value has ballooned to $5 million,
>>the $4.9 million gain in value isn't taxed. But if you sell it, you
>>have to pay a capital gains tax.
>
>
>And if your children sell it that have to pay capital gains tax.
>
>All estate/inheritance taxes should be abolished.
A capital gains tax isn't the same thing as an inheritance tax - it is
the same tax that you would have paid if you had sold the house. And
if you had given the proceeds of that sale to your kids, they would
have paid income tax on it.
Inheritance tax is an additional tax beyond these which would have
been paid anyway.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 22:13:50
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:56:11 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>And if your children sell it that have to pay capital gains tax.
>>
>>All estate/inheritance taxes should be abolished.
>
>A capital gains tax isn't the same thing as an inheritance tax - it is
>the same tax that you would have paid if you had sold the house. And
>if you had given the proceeds of that sale to your kids, they would
>have paid income tax on it.
>
>Inheritance tax is an additional tax beyond these which would have
>been paid anyway.
I understand that. I'm not against capital gains tax except when it's
on stock dividends. I'm totally against all inheritance taxes.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:45:05
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
multi wrote:
>> LOL, those dirty Dems and their punitive vendetta against the most
> productive members of our society --- the children of the very rich.
> That's why Bush has fought harder to eliminate the inheritance tax
> than to increase port security. Priorities, you know.
I'm a flaming liberal, but even I believe that the inheritance tax is
stupid.
Same goes for gift taxes. That money has already been taxed multiple
times.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 00:53:23
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 16 Nov 2006 12:45:05 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>I'm a flaming liberal, but even I believe that the inheritance tax is
>stupid.
>Same goes for gift taxes. That money has already been taxed multiple
>times.
Tax is about getting the state money without costing it more money in
the future - and without getting the people mad enough to throw out
the politicians.
Taxing the same dollar multiple times is a proven technique. Taxing
other people is popular.
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 12:43:15
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> Scientists blame sun for global warming
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm
Got anything newer than 8 years old to share?
Perhaps you missed the date of that article: February 13, 1998
|
| | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 16:37:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 16 Nov 2006 12:43:15 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>> Scientists blame sun for global warming
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm
>
>Got anything newer than 8 years old to share?
>Perhaps you missed the date of that article: February 13, 1998
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter
because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the
past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing
radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate
changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for
Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research,
said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and
may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few
hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -
in the last 100 to 150 years."
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 08:32:50
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163720871.218099.324230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Meanwhile, your property taxes have continued to rise as well.
> > Many senior citizens in my area have found themsleves being priced out
> > of their homes that they've owned for 40 years due to the escalating
> > property taxes caused by urban sprawl.
>
> It really sucks when the value of your property goes up four times what you
> paid for it.
Yes, it does suck if you are retired on a fixed income and you don't
plan on selling.
I think the property taxes should be frozen at the level they were when
you bought the property. In fact, a local ordinance just passed doing
exactly that for seniors.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 08:09:17
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Dave Lee wrote:
>
> Seriously, where are gas prices meaningfully higher now vs. election day? A
> local Exxon station on election day was selling gas for $2.19 (NC is a
> pretty high gas tax state). Yesterday it was the same thing - $2.19. Hasn't
> moved a nickel one way or the other in a month.
It dropped to $1.99 here prior to Election Day. The next day it went
up a dime to $2.09, which is about where it is now.
I guess all those people out driving to go vote ran it up 5%?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 17:55:45
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Dave Lee wrote:
>>
>> Seriously, where are gas prices meaningfully higher now vs. election
>> day? A local Exxon station on election day was selling gas for $2.19
>> (NC is a pretty high gas tax state). Yesterday it was the same thing
>> - $2.19. Hasn't moved a nickel one way or the other in a month.
>
> It dropped to $1.99 here prior to Election Day. The next day it went
> up a dime to $2.09, which is about where it is now.
$2.01 this afternoon at Exxon.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 17 Nov 2006 06:59:59
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2006 12:55:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Not necessarily. If you pay $100,000 for a beach house, then 40 years
> >later leave it to your kids when its value has ballooned to $5 million,
> >the $4.9 million gain in value isn't taxed. But if you sell it, you
> >have to pay a capital gains tax.
>
>
> And if your children sell it that have to pay capital gains tax.
Not at a cost basis of $100,000. And if they don't sell it, they pay
nothing.
>
> All estate/inheritance taxes should be abolished.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 06:57:33
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2006 09:13:49 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But even if you refuse to believe (for whatever reason) that reducing
> >these emissions will help save the planet, nobody has argued a down
> >side to doing that. Why NOT try to reduce these potentially harmful
> >gases? Making our environment cleaner is always a good thing.
>
> While reducing these emissions will help slow down some of the effects
> we are having on the planet - as long as we keep building more farms,
> roads, & buildings, cutting down forests, changing water flow, and
> probably over fishing - the problem will continue to grow.
How does overfishing contribute to greenhouse gas emissions?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 03:55:50
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 17 Nov 2006 06:57:33 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> While reducing these emissions will help slow down some of the effects
>> we are having on the planet - as long as we keep building more farms,
>> roads, & buildings, cutting down forests, changing water flow, and
>> probably over fishing - the problem will continue to grow.
>
>How does overfishing contribute to greenhouse gas emissions?
The reason I said "arguably" is because that premise is still
controversial. One argument has to do with how much the sea life
breathes - although the plants and animals would seem to balance at
any level. But I got to another argument which I really didn't
understand that this could contribute to current changes.
Certainly current changes can make huge climate changes.
At any rate, climate is more complex than any political party would
like to admit.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 06:55:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2006 16:08:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That's it. It's settled. The debate's over. All the science -- and I
> >mean ALL of it -- that points to greenhouse gas emissions as
> >contributing to global warming is hereby proven wrong by these two
> >scientists. Now, aren't all you hippie environmental alarmists
> >embarrassed?
>
>
> There's a lot more than two scientists who report that the sun's
> activity has increased.
In fact, that's one thing that there's actual
> evidence for. There's also actual evidence that CO2 is increasing in
> the atmosphere.
Forgive me, but don't these two sentences contradict each other? There
is more than "evidence" that CO2 concentrations are are increasing.
Those concentrations are measurable and there is no one in the
scientific community that disputes their growth.
The big question is how much each factor contributes
> to global warming. CO2 may have some impact, or perhaps none at all.
Likewise, there are few if any credible scientists who believe that CO2
emissions are not a factor in climate change.
> In any case, the idea that global warming is the result of CO2 buildup
> is not proven.
Proven to whose satisfaction? The huge majority of climate scientists
around the world believe that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting
the climate.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 11:34:33
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 17 Nov 2006 06:55:37 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>The big question is how much each factor contributes
>> to global warming. CO2 may have some impact, or perhaps none at all.
>
>Likewise, there are few if any credible scientists who believe that CO2
>emissions are not a factor in climate change.
I don't argue with this fact John. What I'm saying is that this is a
complex issue and reducing CO2 emissions may not be the answer at all,
or it may have very little effect.
However, we have no control over the sun's activity and therefore
reducing CO2 emissions is the only thing we can do. In that respect I
hope that CO2 has very little effect because the prospect for reducing
CO2 emissions is slim.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 02:56:20
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"Jack Hollis" wrote:
> I don't argue with this fact John. What I'm saying is that this is a
> complex issue and reducing CO2 emissions may not be the answer at all,
> or it may have very little effect.
>
> However, we have no control over the sun's activity and therefore
> reducing CO2 emissions is the only thing we can do. In that respect I
> hope that CO2 has very little effect because the prospect for reducing
> CO2 emissions is slim.
Jack, why don't you enlighten us with specific details about the increase in
solar activity?
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 23:36:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:56:20 GMT, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote:
>Jack, why don't you enlighten us with specific details about the increase in
>solar activity?
Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
6th July, 2004
A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been
at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.
Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice
cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in
the past.
They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the
same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.
This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they
argue.
'Little Ice Age'
Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the
invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct
measurement of our star's activity.
The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun's 11-year cycle
of activity as well as other, longer-term changes.
In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few
sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.
This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer
who studied it.
It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to
as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a
link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive.
Over the past few thousand years there is evidence of earlier
Maunder-like coolings in the Earth's climate - indicated by tree-ring
measurements that show slow growth due to prolonged cold.
In an attempt to determine what happened to sunspots during these
other cold periods, Dr Sami Solanki and colleagues have looked at
concentrations of a form, or isotope, of beryllium in ice cores from
Greenland.
The isotope is created by cosmic rays - high-energy particles from the
depths of the galaxy.
The flux of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface is modulated by
the strength of the solar wind, the charged particles that stream away
from the Sun's surface.
And since the strength of the solar wind varies over the sunspot
cycle, the amount of beryllium in the ice at a time in the past can
therefore be used to infer the state of the Sun and, roughly, the
number of sunspots.
Latest warming
Dr Solanki is presenting a paper on the reconstruction of past solar
activity at Cool Stars, Stellar Systems And The Sun, a conference in
Hamburg, Germany.
He says that the reconstruction shows the Maunder Minimum and the
other minima that are known in the past thousand years.
But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past
1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the
past 60 years.
Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in
the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past
century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some
way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.
Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained
roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has
continued to increase.
This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the
combustion of fossil fuels.
This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable
indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the
Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's
latest attempt to warm the Earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 12:19:53
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
> By Dr David Whitehouse
> BBC News Online science editor
I did not even know we had astrophysicists observing those things 1,000
years ago (back when the world was flat).
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 18 Nov 2006 19:44:42
From: Manco
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
>> By Dr David Whitehouse
>> BBC News Online science editor
>
> I did not even know we had astrophysicists observing those things
> 1,000 years ago (back when the world was flat).
It's country-club Republicans fault that the Sunspots are so high.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 07:14:17
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"Jack Hollis" wrote:
<snip >
> Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained
> roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has
> continued to increase.
>
> This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the
> combustion of fossil fuels.
<snip >
Perhaps you missed this part of the article?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 07:31:40
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 18-Nov-2006, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote:
> "Jack Hollis" wrote:
> <snip>
> > Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained
> > roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has
> > continued to increase.
> >
> > This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the
> > combustion of fossil fuels.
> <snip>
>
>
> Perhaps you missed this part of the article?
Don't you speak English? "this is put down to" = this is assumed to be
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 23:40:36
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"Jack Hollis" wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained
> > > roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has
> > > continued to increase.
> > >
> > > This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the
> > > combustion of fossil fuels.
> > <snip>
JJK wrote:
> > Perhaps you missed this part of the article?
"bill-o" wrote:
> Don't you speak English? "this is put down to" = this is assumed to be
Can you follow the thread?
According to Hollis, that article attributed global warming solely to an
increase in solar activity. The snippet above suggested that Hollis' premise
was not entirely true.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 04:05:29
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 19-Nov-2006, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote:
> Can you follow the thread?
>
> According to Hollis, that article attributed global warming solely to an
> increase in solar activity. The snippet above suggested that Hollis'
> premise
> was not entirely true.
I have been following and I don't see where or how.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 11:40:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:40:36 GMT, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote:
>Can you follow the thread?
>
>According to Hollis, that article attributed global warming solely to an
>increase in solar activity. The snippet above suggested that Hollis' premise
>was not entirely true.
Actually, I never said that increased CO2 emissions were not a factor
in global warming. The theoretical models of the greenhouse effect
include CO2 as a factor and I don't see why increased CO2 would not
increase global temperatures. In addition, there is no doubt that CO2
levels are rising due to human activity.
The problem is that there is no historical record available to measure
this effect. Thus it's impossible to know exactly how much effect CO2
levels are having and will have in the future if they continue to
rise.
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 05:33:09
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
In article <4s485iFu4dd1U1@mid.individual.net >
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
>
>
> "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.11.16.21.15.11.200413@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> > On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:42:31 -0600, MnMikew wrote:
> >
> >> You have no understanding of the world oil markets.
> >
> > And you do. Fantastic. Explain why the price of gas has fluctuated so much
> > the last month or so while the price per barrel of crude has been fairly
> > steady. Take your time.
>
> Look up speculators.
As in "the republicans were speculators by thinking that if the gas
prices dropped, people would have one less axe to grind with bush and
would overlook all his mistakes and ineptness and feel warm and fuzzy
about low gas prices henceforth big oil, who would LOVE to see
republicans in control figured they would take a hit for a few months,
knowing they would make up that and more by the end of the
quarter.......speculators."
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 10:19:45
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Here's more on Mr. Cooney, an oil guy who moved to working for the
> > White House and is now back with Exxon. And you think that Bush and
> > Exxon aren't entwined?
>
> It's only a complete retard that thinks Republicans and Democrats are self
> sustaining and not controlled by the actual people with power in this
> country. Bushtard and Halicheney are controlled by oil companies; Bubba
> Clinton was controlled by arms dealers like Marc Rich. Kennedy was Irish
> mafia; Johnson was oil, Reagan was military contractors; etc. I can go
> on and on about the perverse control that SIG's have on the Executive
> Office.
So who controls Hillary?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 16:50:09
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Dene wrote:
> So who controls Hillary?
My sum experience with Senator Clinton is that she has oversight on the
Vaccine Ordering and Disbursement System (VODS) and the Pandemic Management
System (PanFlu). These Senators and Congressmen only oversee these specific
Government initiatives due to being part of the Senate Health Committee
(which now includes Senator Kennedy). I am not a Democrat, and therefore I
have no idea what organizations and other initiatives Senator Clinton
supports; or what corporations have assisted her with her Legislative
career.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 19 Nov 2006 02:55:25
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: FOX News VS Other media
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 19:46:27 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:18:03 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
>>There's enough blame to go around to everyone involved. My point is
>>that FEMA didn't perform the fastest and largest response by the
>>federal government in US history. That was done in Florida, and another
>>hurricane.
>
> The blame game is a long story.
It sure is! And a good thing too. All those mistakes prove it wasn't the
fault of Bush or any of his handlers. Because unlike Florida where a lot
of wealthy white people live, most of the residents of New Orleans were
black. If most of the residents of New Orleans were rich white people, the
outcome would have been absolutely identical.
You believe that too, don't you Jack?
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 16:53:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:50:09 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
> I am not a Democrat, and therefore I
>have no idea what organizations and other initiatives Senator Clinton
>supports; or what corporations have assisted her with her Legislative
>career.
Are you implying that Democrats know who buy her, but non Democrats
don't know?
And Republicans know who buys the President, but non Republicans don't
know?
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 13:07:42
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:50:09 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> I am not a Democrat, and therefore I
>> have no idea what organizations and other initiatives Senator
>> Clinton supports; or what corporations have assisted her with her
>> Legislative career.
>
> Are you implying that Democrats know who buy her, but non Democrats
> don't know?
I didn't think my statement was that complicated. I am not imlying
anything - I am *clearly stating* that since I am not a Democrat I do not
follow closely her career and her business relationships.
> And Republicans know who buys the President, but non Republicans don't
> know?
Are you so obtuse as to not be aware of Bushtards oil connections? Ever
hear of Halicheney; Bushtard's puppetmaster?
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 20 Nov 2006 07:31:11
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> S McFarlane wrote:
> > Her real difficulty will be bringing that dog and pony show onto the
> > national stage. Her numbers in NY reflect the fact that she seems to
> > have done an excellent job representing NY interests in the Senate. That
> > doesn't carry any water in OH or rural PA. Outside of NY, she's
> > only got her national persona to work with, and that's problematic. In
> > areas that lean conservative, she's DOA (job approval and just
> > about every other indicator for registered Republicans in NY are in
> > the toilet.)
> > So, I think a moderate Republican beats her on the national stage by
> > a good margin. She takes all the solid blue; moderate Republican
> > takes all the red. In the swing states, she'll lose almost all of
> > the conservative vote, and some of the centrist left will bleed over
> > to moderate Republican.
>
>
> I disagree, Scott. I think she takes the female vote in red states; and
> majority (irrepsective of sex) in the blue states. Perhaps she loses
> the primary and runs as VP. I predict Executive Office; but I will not
> commit that it has to be as President.
>
I think she has the nomination all but sewed up, and I don't think she
would accept an invitation to run as VP. As for her chances of getting
elected president, I think a lot of this depends on factors that we
can't foresee. What shape will the economy be in? What shape will the
Republican Party be in? What will the situation in Iraq be?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 17:57:55
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > 2004 Texas-Wyoming Massachusetts-North Carolina
> > 2000 Texas-Wyoming Tennessee-Connecticut
> > 1996 Kansas-Maryland Arkansas-Tennessee
> > 1992 Texas-Indiana Arkansas-Tennessee
> > 1988 Texas-Indiana Massachusetts-Texas
> > 1984 California-Texas Minnesota-New York
> > 1980 California-Texas Georgia-Minnesota
> > 1976 Michigan-Kansas Georgia-Minnesota
> > 1972 California-Maryland South Dakota-Maryland
> > 1968 California-Maryland Minnesota-Maine
> > 1964 Arizona -New York Texas-Minnesota
> > 1960 California-Massachusetts Massachusetts-Texas
> >
>
>
> These columns have no titles. What do they mean? Am I to guess column two
> to be Republicans and where they were born versus column three as Democrats
> and where they were born?
Column one is the home states of the winning Pres-Vice Pres. Column
two is the losre sof the elections. Hence, Texas-Wyoming = Bush/Cheney
while Massachusetts-NC = Kerry-Edwards.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 21:01:29
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> 2004 Texas-Wyoming Massachusetts-North Carolina
>>> 2000 Texas-Wyoming Tennessee-Connecticut
>>> 1996 Kansas-Maryland Arkansas-Tennessee
>>> 1992 Texas-Indiana Arkansas-Tennessee
>>> 1988 Texas-Indiana Massachusetts-Texas
>>> 1984 California-Texas Minnesota-New York
>>> 1980 California-Texas Georgia-Minnesota
>>> 1976 Michigan-Kansas Georgia-Minnesota
>>> 1972 California-Maryland South Dakota-Maryland
>>> 1968 California-Maryland Minnesota-Maine
>>> 1964 Arizona -New York Texas-Minnesota
>>> 1960 California-Massachusetts Massachusetts-Texas
>>>
>>
>>
>> These columns have no titles. What do they mean? Am I to guess
>> column two to be Republicans and where they were born versus column
>> three as Democrats and where they were born?
>
> Column one is the home states of the winning Pres-Vice Pres. Column
> two is the losre sof the elections. Hence, Texas-Wyoming =
> Bush/Cheney while Massachusetts-NC = Kerry-Edwards.
Negatory - Arkansas-Tennessee (Clinton & Gore) did not lose in 92 and 96.
He must have done those columns by party.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 21 Nov 2006 02:12:38
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately HEADSHOT Apologize
|
Hey asshole
You own me an apology. You are the racist scum bag.
You don't even have the balls to even attempt to address the response.
No one has ever called me a racist or a skinhead you miserable little
fuck. If you were anywhere near here we could address this directly but
you want to hide behind an alias.
My bet is that you are just a plain old fashioned troll playing with
these people or a thirteen year old playing with mommy's computer.
Joe
Head Shot wrote:
Head Shot wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>> Absolutely true. The numbers are the numbers. I do find it
>> interesting that you chose the race card.
>
>
>
> I am just being frank about how I feel, Joe. As soon as you said
"handout and gimme people" it stunk of racism. Don't think so - check
StormFront.org. That's how racists view Blacks and other minorities -
as a drain on society.
Knee jerk reaction on your part chief.
Do you suggest that we, in the US do NOT have a population segment that
is a drain on society. Think this time.
Is Bill Cosby a racist?
>
>> You know exactly
>> what I mean by the handout and gimme crowd.
>
>
>
> I sure do, Herr Joe Skinhead.
>
Is John F. Kennedy a skinhead?
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what
you can do for your country."
>> You are the closet racist.
>
>
>
> Yeah - I am the closet Jewish racist that has mostly African
American friends and family. Stick to your KKK rallies; you are not
impressing me. In fact, I don't even care to hear any more of your
[thinly veiled] racist comments. ^K
I don't give a rats butt what you what or don't want to hear. You
brought the BS into the thread and have been unable to resist name
calling and other tactics of the intellectually challenged.
I described a behavior pattern in my original post. That behavior is a
cross cultural phenomenon and I have repeatedly made that point.
As a matter of fact, since you are a "born and bred New Yorker" I would
suggest that you explain to this group the behavior of the residents
Kiryas Joel.
Joe
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 00:46:28
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> It's obvious why Exxon wants to poo-poo the whole idea
> of greenhouse gases. "60 Minutes" did a good story on one such creep,
> Philip Cooney.
>
Here's more on Mr. Cooney, an oil guy who moved to working for the
White House and is now back with Exxon. And you think that Bush and
Exxon aren't entwined?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?ex=1275883200&en=22149dd80c073dd8&ei=5089
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: June 8, 2005
A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against
limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate
reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global
warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and
2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions
of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors,
including some senior Bush administration officials, had already
approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of
the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word
"uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that
most climate experts say are robust.
Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote
administration policies on environmental issues.
Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team
leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest
trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer
with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 12:22:46
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Here's more on Mr. Cooney, an oil guy who moved to working for the
> White House and is now back with Exxon. And you think that Bush and
> Exxon aren't entwined?
It's only a complete retard that thinks Republicans and Democrats are self
sustaining and not controlled by the actual people with power in this
country. Bushtard and Halicheney are controlled by oil companies; Bubba
Clinton was controlled by arms dealers like Marc Rich. Kennedy was Irish
mafia; Johnson was oil, Reagan was military contractors; etc. I can go
on and on about the perverse control that SIG's have on the Executive
Office.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 18 Nov 2006 11:27:05
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:22:46 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>annika1980 wrote:
>> Here's more on Mr. Cooney, an oil guy who moved to working for the
>> White House and is now back with Exxon. And you think that Bush and
>> Exxon aren't entwined?
>
>It's only a complete retard that thinks Republicans and Democrats are self
>sustaining and not controlled by the actual people with power in this
>country. Bushtard and Halicheney are controlled by oil companies; Bubba
>Clinton was controlled by arms dealers like Marc Rich. Kennedy was Irish
>mafia; Johnson was oil, Reagan was military contractors; etc. I can go
>on and on about the perverse control that SIG's have on the Executive
>Office.
Given the above choices, the Irish Mafia is the least dangerous :-)
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 00:40:18
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Buford Ressup wrote:
> I want to see the *real* scientific evidence. Everything I've seen so
> far is carefully presented propaganda. I want to see the data that prove
> it. The complete data. I want to see the correlation between whatever
> they're blaming and whatever they're warning us about. Give us the actual
> data, ALL the data, and we can see for ourselves how strongly correlated
> the variables are. The equations are simple enough. Let us investigate
> it for ourselves.
Fortunately, we have climatologists whose job it is to do just that.
There is a lot of good information out there. Look it up.
Whenever I hear someone going on about some issue the cynic in me asks,
"What's his end? What is this guy getting out of it?"
Most climatologists are scientists dedicated to scientific research.
They have no axes to grind. However, sometimes you'll hear of some
study that is trotted out by some scientist who turns out to be on
Exxon's payroll. It's obvious why Exxon wants to poo-poo the whole idea
of greenhouse gases. "60 Minutes" did a good story on one such creep,
Philip Cooney.
Source: CBS.MarketWatch.com June 14, 2005
ExxonMobil has confirmed that it has hired Philip A. Cooney, the former
chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality who
resigned last week after it was revealed that his editing of government
scientists reports downplayed the significance of climate change. An
Exxon Mobil spokesman declined to provide details of Cooney's new job,
which he starts in autumn. Deputy spokeswoman for the White House, Dana
Perino, told the New York Times "Phil Cooney did a great job and we
appreciate his public service and the work that he did, and we wish him
well in the private sector."
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 00:27:00
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Buford Ressup wrote:
> > So, now that the Dems control both houses, how soon can we expect the
> price of gas to come back down to, say, $1.50 a gallon? No excuses, now.
> If you're blaming Republicans for "allowing" the price to go up to insane
> heights, you'll have to blame the Democrats for "allowing" it to happen
> all over again. Unless you're...biased.
Not quite.
http://hometown.aol.com/masdiaz4/dicenporahi_bush_saudi1.jpg
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 22:05:45
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > So you work for CDC?
>
> Working *at* CDC. I go from Government conract to Government contract as
> I am needed and asked to. It's more interesting than retirement; that's for
> sure.
I got this rash.....
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 01:51:51
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Dene wrote:
> I got this rash.....
Any idea who gave it to you? BTW - one person with a rash is by no means a
pandemic. Now if you died from it and took about 4 million of your closest
friends with you; then this system would decide who is important enough to
get Tamiflu. :-)
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 18 Nov 2006 16:49:16
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> Buford Ressup wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, there is a mountain of pseudo-scientific propaganda to support
> > it. But you do have Al Gore telling you it's scientific evidence, so I
> > guess that counts for something.
>
> ..actually, the pseudu science says there is no global warming. The real
> science is tha tthere is global warming. *ONE* report about known properties of
> the sun having a pourely specualtive effect on weather is pseudoscience, for
> example.
Ok....there is global warming. Wouldn't be the first time either,
since it is warmer than times during the Ice Age. Real question
is....does it really matter if the earth is warming?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 23:05:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 18 Nov 2006 16:49:16 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>Ok....there is global warming. Wouldn't be the first time either,
>since it is warmer than times during the Ice Age. Real question
>is....does it really matter if the earth is warming?
>
>-Greg
It does matter because there are a lot of people who live in areas
that will end up under water. A 15 or 20 foot rise in sea level would
leave most of Florida under water. The whole south shore of Long
Island would be swamped. Most of Holland would be gone. Huge
portions Bangladesh would be gone. The list goes on and on.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 17:00:04
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 18 Nov 2006 16:49:16 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>Ok....there is global warming. Wouldn't be the first time either,
>since it is warmer than times during the Ice Age. Real question
>is....does it really matter if the earth is warming?
Change always matters. Climate changes matters a lot. Global
cooling moved the Huns into the Roman Empire. Global warming
temporarily moved the Norse into Iceland and America.
If Mexico turns into desert and Canada into a bigger breadbasket - it
will matter.
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 16:47:16
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > So who controls Hillary?
>
> My sum experience with Senator Clinton is that she has oversight on the
> Vaccine Ordering and Disbursement System (VODS) and the Pandemic Management
> System (PanFlu). These Senators and Congressmen only oversee these specific
> Government initiatives due to being part of the Senate Health Committee
> (which now includes Senator Kennedy). I am not a Democrat, and therefore I
> have no idea what organizations and other initiatives Senator Clinton
> supports; or what corporations have assisted her with her Legislative
> career.
>
So you work for CDC?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 23:07:35
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Dene wrote:
> So you work for CDC?
Working *at* CDC. I go from Government conract to Government contract as
I am needed and asked to. It's more interesting than retirement; that's for
sure.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 19 Nov 2006 06:21:54
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
debated.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 12:53:27
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it
>>> is an
>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey
>> that sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global
>> Warming" is not occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>
> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is
> being debated.
I agree with you - it is happening. IMHO, this planet is not in stasis
and it should have cycles of global warming and cooling all the time.
Personally; I blame the present warming trend on Republicans and Democrats;
who are all full of hot air.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 19 Nov 2006 10:37:19
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>
> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> debated.
>
Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 12:54:18
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it
>>>> is an
>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey
>>> that sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global
>>> Warming" is not occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>>
>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is
>> being debated.
>>
>
> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a
> man made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
The existance of Man is a natural progression of the evolution of life on
this planet; so whatever it (Man) does is natural.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 20 Nov 2006 01:41:06
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:54:18 -0500, Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
>> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
>
> The existance of Man is a natural progression of the evolution of life
> on this planet; so whatever it (Man) does is natural.
However we are the first species that is able to see the implications of
our actions, and therefore have the capacity to change our behavior. If it
turns out that we will continue to just consume all available resources
like any other organism--and this may well be the case--then we're
screwed.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 10:19:28
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
In article <ErGdnRDLjtOy5_3YnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> >> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> >> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> >> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> >> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >
> > I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> > claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> > debated.
> >
>
> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
I think it is a natural cycle also, but exacerbated by man's prolific
emissions. And while we can't change the naturally occuring problems,
we can and should do something about the human induced stuff.
While I'm not sure I agree with the gloom and doomers, I am sure I don't
agree with the no problem group.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 12:55:26
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> I think it is a natural cycle also, but exacerbated by man's prolific
> emissions.
Replace "man" with "Democrats and Republicans" and the sentence is worthy
of a Usenet Signature(SIG).
:-)
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 19 Nov 2006 12:32:26
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:19:28 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>I think it is a natural cycle also, but exacerbated by man's prolific
>emissions. And while we can't change the naturally occuring problems,
>we can and should do something about the human induced stuff.
I tend to agree with this. If reducing CO2 emissions will reduce the
problem, then it's worth doing. Unfortunately, reduction of CO2 wont
happen.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 23:45:53
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> >>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is
an
> >> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> >> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> >> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is
not
> >> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >
> > I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> > claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> > debated.
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
To what do you attribute the change in the ocean's pH?
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 20:00:44
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
JJK wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is
> an
>>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
>>>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is
> not
>>>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
>>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
>>> debated.
>
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
>> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
>
>
> To what do you attribute the change in the ocean's pH?
Reduced fish pee.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 19:29:25
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
JJK wrote:
> To what do you attribute the change in the ocean's pH?
Gazillions of fish peeing in it.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 09:40:28
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
The significance of the temperature changes are still being debated. Whether
they a part of normally recurring variations or a permanent increase is
still the unanswered question.
One need only look at the Atlantic Basin hurricanes to see that nobody
really knows what will happen long term. The large number and very big
storms in 2005 was blamed on global warming by the Al Gore types. I'm not
holding my breathe waiting for them to attribute the rather tame 2006 season
to global cooling.
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163946114.203210.217750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>
> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> debated.
>
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 21:20:05
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 19-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> > unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> > that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> > sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> > occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>
> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> debated.
You mean like this one by none other than Dr. William Grey
"(the hurricane guy)"
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf
me
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 06:20:04
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> >
> Just wait until she is on the campaign trail and has to speak
> extemporaneously. She will take her large feet and shove both of them
> into here mouth at the same time over and over and over again.
Didn't seem to hurt Bush.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 19:08:49
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Sparky wrote:
> >
> > I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> > claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> > debated.
>
> You mean like this one by none other than Dr. William Grey
> "(the hurricane guy)"
>
> http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf
>
I'm still waiting. He admits to the global warming in his summary:
>
" It is much more probable that the observed warming of the globe of
the last 30 years is not a result of the changing energy source of
=CE=94CO2 but rather a result of an imbalance of the higher magnitude
natural changing energy source-sink terms of LW=E2=80=B2, H=E2=80=B2, Evap=
=E2=80=B2, and
THC=E2=80=B2."
The rest of his paper simply debates the causes of the observed warming
trend.
Personally, I think that if the world ends it will be more like getting
hit by a bus rather than a slow painful death. So the question is, "If
you knew you were gonna someday get hit by a bus, would you still take
care of yourself?" I mean, we're all gonna die anyway, right, so what
difference does it make?
"Nobody here gets out alive."
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 06:09:40
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163992129.749142.289500@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Personally, I think that if the world ends it will be more like getting
hit by a bus rather than a slow painful death. So the question is, "If
you knew you were gonna someday get hit by a bus, would you still take
care of yourself?" I mean, we're all gonna die anyway, right, so what
difference does it make?
"Nobody here gets out alive."
Carpe diem, tempus fugit and all of that. If I knew I'd die suddenly 5 days
from now, it'd be a profoundly unhealthy 5 days. But I don't know that, and
that's why it makes a difference.
Your quote is supremely apt. If ever there were a man who lived by the
Latin in all it's extremes, it was he. He'd be 62 years old now, and so
statistically speaking he'd most likely still be alive if he had been more
inclined toward shoe sales. As of today, his unwillingness to compromise
with life has caused him to miss out on 12,924 days of ho-hum existence. He
thought a bus was coming soon, and so it didn't matter. Who can really say
that trading in those 13K days in order to see things beyond the perimeter
was stupid? Maybe a bus was coming.
Personally, I think there's a sweet spot somewhere between that and shoe
sales. Before I answer your question, could you first tell me when the bus
will arrive? While I'm waiting for your answer, I'll try to remember that
it _is_ coming while understanding that it probably won't be tomorrow. If I
could only find that sweet spot...
reminds me of my driver.
Scott
P.S. What shoe salesman ever said anything like
I'll tell you this...
No eternal reward will forgive us now
For wasting the dawn.
Back in those days everything was simpler and more confused
One summer night, going to the pier
I ran into two young girls
The blonde one was called Freedom
The dark one, Enterprise
We talked and they told me this story
Now listen to this...
I'll tell you about Texas radio and the big beat
Soft driven, slow and mad
Like some new language
Reaching your head with the cold, sudden fury of a divine messenger
Let me tell you about heartache and the loss of god
Wandering, wandering in hopeless night
Out here in the perimeter there are no stars
Out here we is stoned
Immaculate.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 13:44:31
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> >> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> >> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> >> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> >> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >
> > I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> > claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> > debated.
> >
>
> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
Fine. State the natural cycle and show how it explains all the
phenomena global warming theory explains. A cycle for this and a cycle
is a lame response. You need to unite as many of the facts as possible
with the one theory, not have special theories for every fact.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 19:49:23
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> annika1980 wrote:
>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
>>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
>>>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
>>>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
>>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
>>> debated.
>>>
>> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
>> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
>
> Fine. State the natural cycle and show how it explains all the
> phenomena global warming theory explains. A cycle for this and a cycle
> is a lame response. You need to unite as many of the facts as possible
> with the one theory, not have special theories for every fact.
>
We are watching a phenomena on a very large scale that can't be modeled
or reliably predicted, guessed maybe but not predicted.
Half the earth is heating up while the other half is cooling off each
and every day.
The earth is progressing from its birth towards its death. What happens
to a planet as it dies? What are the causes of that death. Are the
external, extra-planetary, events that can cause a planets death?
Bring into the equation the observed information regarding Mars' own
global warming and you really do have to give this whole man made global
warming cause quite a bit of direct scrutiny.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 13:42:49
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Sparky wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> > >> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> > > unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> > > that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> > > sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> > > occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >
> > I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> > claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> > debated.
>
> You mean like this one by none other than Dr. William Grey
> "(the hurricane guy)"
>
> http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf
>
>
When the author talks in generalities about scientific models, and
makes comments like "cannot and should not" with respect ot attribution
of global warming phenomena to specific causes, it loses credibility.
There are no models that can predict the effects of CO2 level
increases, neither from this autor nor any othewr. However, wich
explanations are accepted by mainstrean science and why? The author
does not address this.
This is typical of this sort of attack on science. Discredit some
aspect of some models, and then claim all models that don't fall his
way are false. He is less credible than mainstrean science simply
because he cannot come up with a body of theory as credible as cureent
mainstream models. Simply criticizing other theories does not make them
invalid. He has to present a theory that explains at the very least
everything current accepted theories explain, with no more than the
same number of sentaces current theory uses. He fails to do this, to
say the least.
A critique is valid, but the "cannot and should not" rhetoric is a red
flag to me that this is likely some sort of paid for article to
advocate a politcal position.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 03:44:04
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 19-Nov-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> This is typical of this sort of attack on science.
How do you see an "attack on science" here? This seems to be a scientific
response to other scientists: "scuse me guys, you failed to include this in
your data!"
> When the author talks in generalities about scientific models, and
> makes comments like "cannot and should not" with respect ot attribution
> of global warming phenomena to specific causes, it loses credibility.
How can you take 4 words, rhetorical ones at that, and dismiss the argument
instead of dealing with its substance?:
"It should also be noted that the globe underwent a weak cooling between
1950 and 1975 during which CO2 amounts were rising and causing a continuous
mean energy gain over this 25 year period of about 0.4 w/m2. If all of this
energy went into an accumulation of temperature in the upper 100 m of the
global oceans, we would see an upper mean 100 m global ocean temperature
increase of 1.1oC. Rather the actual temperature change during this period
of increased human-induced CO2 was observed to be a cooling oft 0.1oC."
This observation cannot be ignored if you want to put any "credit" in the
"mainstream" models. I'm a skeptic by nature and become moreso when I
observe the lemming like behavior of some who would attribute any and all
adverse meteorlogical events to "Global Warming." I also detect much
arrogance in that camp. They seem to think that "science" has figured it out
definitively w/o realizing how complex our weather system is, and how much
there still is to understand. Unfortunately some of these folk are
scientists.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 03:50:42
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> > This is typical of this sort of attack on science.
>
> How do you see an "attack on science" here? This seems to be a scientific
> response to other scientists: "scuse me guys, you failed to include this in
> your data!"
>
> > When the author talks in generalities about scientific models, and
> > makes comments like "cannot and should not" with respect ot attribution
> > of global warming phenomena to specific causes, it loses credibility.
>
> How can you take 4 words, rhetorical ones at that, and dismiss the argument
> instead of dealing with its substance?:
Those statements are all generalities. If he went to a real scientific meeting
and made absolute statements like that he'd get several new orafices ripped into
his body. He is using his authority to bully the general public. Neither he, nor
anyone else can make such an authoritative statement on the issue. It's just his
opinion, with no specific causal theory of his own.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 04:57:18
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 19-Nov-2006, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote:
> It's just his opinion, with no specific causal theory of his own.
You didn't read the paper, did you? Not only does he have a theory, but
makes predictions based on it as well.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 02:40:32
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1163972569.596436.269690@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> When the author talks in generalities about scientific models, and
> makes comments like "cannot and should not" with respect ot attribution
> of global warming phenomena to specific causes, it loses credibility.
> There are no models that can predict the effects of CO2 level
> increases, neither from this autor nor any othewr.
Precisely the point. Reducing CO2 emissions is not a trivial thing, and an
attempt to make it happen with an at-any-cost attitude could prove
disasterous. Fine, so we greatly reduce a supposed causal factor in the
warming of the earth. Unfortunately, world povery just went through the
roof.
This sort of thinking must be overcome by those who advocate serious efforts
to reduce CO2 levels. At the end of all the arguing back and forth,
scientists sort of shrug their shoulders when asked 'Are you absolutely
positive?' They can't responsibly do anything else. Given the potentially
serious consequences of a robust effort to curb CO2 emissions in the short
term, most thinking people are less than satisfied with that response.
Atmospheric science is very complex and difficult to understand for even
technically-oriented people. The question of greenhouse gas effects on
long term global weather patterns is a subject non-experts can hardly
scratch the surface of. We are left to rely on the opinions of those who
have made atmospheric science their life's work. Most people don't like to
do that if they don't percieve a solid consensus among the experts,
especially when the stakes are so high.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 13:15:16
From:
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2006 16:49:16 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Ok....there is global warming. Wouldn't be the first time either,
> >since it is warmer than times during the Ice Age. Real question
> >is....does it really matter if the earth is warming?
>
> Change always matters. Climate changes matters a lot. Global
> cooling moved the Huns into the Roman Empire. Global warming
> temporarily moved the Norse into Iceland
What do you mean by temporarily, you mean that there are no Norse in
Iceland now?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 15:37:25
From: multi
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 19 Nov 2006 13:15:16 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:
>
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2006 16:49:16 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok....there is global warming. Wouldn't be the first time either,
>> >since it is warmer than times during the Ice Age. Real question
>> >is....does it really matter if the earth is warming?
>>
>> Change always matters. Climate changes matters a lot. Global
>> cooling moved the Huns into the Roman Empire. Global warming
>> temporarily moved the Norse into Iceland
>
>What do you mean by temporarily, you mean that there are no Norse in
>Iceland now?
He probably meant Greenland.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 12:53:56
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 19 Nov 2006 13:15:16 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:
>> Change always matters. Climate changes matters a lot. Global
>> cooling moved the Huns into the Roman Empire. Global warming
>> temporarily moved the Norse into Iceland
>
>What do you mean by temporarily, you mean that there are no Norse in
>Iceland now?
You truncated my sentence.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 10:25:09
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Even I can recall as kid seeing birds of various species all along
> power lines. Today all we see are trees filled with blackbirds. The
> devastation of bird communities has been astonishing, but nobody
> notices it, which is amazing in itself!
>
I worry more about the negative effects of cell phone towers and all
the transmission waves that we are bombarded with daily. Think about
all the waves that are "in the air" as you walk outside. My personal
theory is that if we could somehow suspend all satellite, microwave,
RF, TV transmissions for just one day, I'll bet you could go outside
and tell the difference. Who knows what negative long-term effects
these things have on our bodies?
Someday we will be able to combine all these transmissions into one
single wave that everyone can receive.
We'll call it "God."
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 21:12:50
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
>> Even I can recall as kid seeing birds of various species all along
>> power lines. Today all we see are trees filled with blackbirds. The
>> devastation of bird communities has been astonishing, but nobody
>> notices it, which is amazing in itself!
>>
>
> I worry more about the negative effects of cell phone towers and all
> the transmission waves that we are bombarded with daily. Think about
> all the waves that are "in the air" as you walk outside. My personal
> theory is that if we could somehow suspend all satellite, microwave,
> RF, TV transmissions for just one day, I'll bet you could go outside
> and tell the difference. Who knows what negative long-term effects
> these things have on our bodies?
>
> Someday we will be able to combine all these transmissions into one
> single wave that everyone can receive.
> We'll call it "God."
>
Some of us have more developed receivers and we hear God now.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 23:20:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:12:50 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:
>Some of us have more developed receivers and we hear God now.
I always thought that if God wanted to draw attention to Himself, He'd
simply clear His throat. Ahhhemmm.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 21:31:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Some of us have more developed receivers and we hear God now.
Next time you talk to him; ask him why he didn't make more chicks look like
J-Lo or Jennie McCarthey.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 20 Nov 2006 21:45:47
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Some of us have more developed receivers and we hear God now.
>
> Next time you talk to him; ask him why he didn't make more chicks look like
> J-Lo or Jennie McCarthey.
I nearly had a mental breakdown when I found out the nudi-magazines used
air brushes.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 02:48:07
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Some of us have more developed receivers and we hear God now.
>>
>> Next time you talk to him; ask him why he didn't make more chicks
>> look like J-Lo or Jennie McCarthey.
>
> I nearly had a mental breakdown when I found out the nudi-magazines
> used air brushes.
I think that's a snopes.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 20 Nov 2006 14:05:30
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1164047109.721284.70300@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> I worry more about the negative effects of cell phone towers and all
> the transmission waves that we are bombarded with daily. Think about
> all the waves that are "in the air" as you walk outside. My personal
> theory is that if we could somehow suspend all satellite, microwave,
> RF, TV transmissions for just one day, I'll bet you could go outside
> and tell the difference. Who knows what negative long-term effects
> these things have on our bodies?
>
> Someday we will be able to combine all these transmissions into one
> single wave that everyone can receive.
> We'll call it "God."
>
Just don't go outside without your tin foil hat.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 08:06:31
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> bill-o wrote:
>
> > On 19-Nov-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > This is typical of this sort of attack on science.
> >
> > How do you see an "attack on science" here? This seems to be a scientific
> > response to other scientists: "scuse me guys, you failed to include this in
> > your data!"
> >
> > > When the author talks in generalities about scientific models, and
> > > makes comments like "cannot and should not" with respect ot attribution
> > > of global warming phenomena to specific causes, it loses credibility.
> >
> > How can you take 4 words, rhetorical ones at that, and dismiss the argument
> > instead of dealing with its substance?:
>
> Those statements are all generalities. If he went to a real scientific meeting
> and made absolute statements like that he'd get several new orafices ripped into
> his body. He is using his authority to bully the general public. Neither he, nor
> anyone else can make such an authoritative statement on the issue. It's just his
> opinion, with no specific causal theory of his own.
Any "scientist" who opens a research paper with a quote by a Senator
calling climate change a "hoax" pretty much destroys his credibility
right there.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 08:02:49
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Sparky wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> > >> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> > > unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> > > that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> > > sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> > > occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >
> > I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> > claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> > debated.
>
> You mean like this one by none other than Dr. William Grey
> "(the hurricane guy)"
>
> http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf
>
>
> me
This report clearly concedes on pg. 2 that global warming is happening.
It disputes the cause. If you're trying to disprove the theory of your
own intelligence, you're doing a terrific job.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 21:36:42
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 20-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> Sparky wrote:
> > On 19-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bert Robbins wrote:
> > > >> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it
> > > >> is an
> > > > unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> > > > that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey
> > > > that
> > > > sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is
> > > > not
> > > > occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> > >
> > > I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> > > claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is
> > > being
> > > debated.
> >
> > You mean like this one by none other than Dr. William Grey
> > "(the hurricane guy)"
> >
> > http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf
> >
> >
> > me
>
>
> This report clearly concedes on pg. 2 that global warming is happening.
> It disputes the cause. If you're trying to disprove the theory of your
> own intelligence, you're doing a terrific job.
If you read the report you'd notice that it says any warming we are seeing
now is temporary and a cooling trend is imminent. We'll see in the next
12 years weather he's right or not.
btw, this years dearth of hurricanes is being blamed by some on a slight
cooling of ocean waters where they form..
me
..
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 07:58:04
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> annika1980 wrote:
> >>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> >>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> >>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> >>>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> >>>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> >>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> >>> debated.
> >>>
> >> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
> >> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
> >
> > Fine. State the natural cycle and show how it explains all the
> > phenomena global warming theory explains. A cycle for this and a cycle
> > is a lame response. You need to unite as many of the facts as possible
> > with the one theory, not have special theories for every fact.
> >
>
> We are watching a phenomena on a very large scale that can't be modeled
> or reliably predicted, guessed maybe but not predicted.
>
> Half the earth is heating up while the other half is cooling off each
> and every day.
>
> The earth is progressing from its birth towards its death. What happens
> to a planet as it dies? What are the causes of that death. Are the
> external, extra-planetary, events that can cause a planets death?
>
> Bring into the equation the observed information regarding Mars' own
> global warming and you really do have to give this whole man made global
> warming cause quite a bit of direct scrutiny.
Yes, and unlike you, the scientific community has been giving it quite
a bit of direct scrutiny for decades. And the overwhelming majority of
climate scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting
the global climate. Those are facts. Maybe they're wronng, but I doubt
it. To have consensus of that magnitude and for that length of time
turn out to be wrong would be truly extraordinary.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 21:10:58
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> The_Professor wrote:
>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>> annika1980 wrote:
>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
>>>>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>>>>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
>>>>>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
>>>>>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>>>>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
>>>>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
>>>>> debated.
>>>>>
>>>> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
>>>> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
>>> Fine. State the natural cycle and show how it explains all the
>>> phenomena global warming theory explains. A cycle for this and a cycle
>>> is a lame response. You need to unite as many of the facts as possible
>>> with the one theory, not have special theories for every fact.
>>>
>> We are watching a phenomena on a very large scale that can't be modeled
>> or reliably predicted, guessed maybe but not predicted.
>>
>> Half the earth is heating up while the other half is cooling off each
>> and every day.
>>
>> The earth is progressing from its birth towards its death. What happens
>> to a planet as it dies? What are the causes of that death. Are the
>> external, extra-planetary, events that can cause a planets death?
>>
>> Bring into the equation the observed information regarding Mars' own
>> global warming and you really do have to give this whole man made global
>> warming cause quite a bit of direct scrutiny.
>
>
> Yes, and unlike you, the scientific community has been giving it quite
> a bit of direct scrutiny for decades. And the overwhelming majority of
> climate scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting
> the global climate. Those are facts. Maybe they're wronng, but I doubt
> it. To have consensus of that magnitude and for that length of time
> turn out to be wrong would be truly extraordinary.
>
What cause the last ice age? What caused the cooling? What preceded the
last ice age and what caused it?
What does the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe we
should be doing to stop the current global warming?
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 07:49:33
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> >> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it
> >>>> is an
> >>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> >>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey
> >>> that sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global
> >>> Warming" is not occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >>
> >> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> >> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is
> >> being debated.
> >>
> >
> > Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a
> > man made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
>
>
> The existance of Man is a natural progression of the evolution of life on
> this planet; so whatever it (Man) does is natural.
>
You're joking, right?
\
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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: 20 Nov 2006 21:31:08
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> annika1980 wrote:
>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it
>>>>>> is an
>>>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>>>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey
>>>>> that sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global
>>>>> Warming" is not occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>>>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
>>>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is
>>>> being debated.
>>>>
>>> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a
>>> man made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
>>
>> The existance of Man is a natural progression of the evolution of life on
>> this planet; so whatever it (Man) does is natural.
>>
> You're joking, right?
What is the difference between beaver made and man made?
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 21:36:31
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> What is the difference between beaver
Hopefully no more than a few inches. Anything more is just plain loose.
IMHO, of course.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 20 Nov 2006 20:53:43
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> The existance of Man is a natural progression of the evolution of
>> life on this planet; so whatever it (Man) does is natural.
>>
> You're joking, right?
I was; but nobody found it funny.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 20 Nov 2006 07:46:25
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > Jack Hollis wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:39:06 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ..actually, the pseudu science says there is no global warming. The real
> >>> science is tha tthere is global warming. *ONE* report about known properties of
> >>> the sun having a pourely specualtive effect on weather is pseudoscience, for
> >>> example.
> >> The variability of the sun is known to effect the earth's temperature
> >> because there are historical records to prove this effect.
> >
> > Correlations are not indicative of causality. It's pseudoscientific. The correlation
> > will be there if the cause is real, but the correlation itself does not make the
> > cause real. The data on global warming are fairly substantial. No question
> > increasing CO2 in the atmpsphere increaes the retention of heat in the atmpsphere,
> > for example. The only legitimate debate is the effect. IMHO, the increse in CO2 and
> > decrease in photosynthesis feedback positively on each other. Another is that the
> > effect in say NYC is likely to be less than the effect in the tropics. The model I
> > think is most robust is the one that says we will get an isolation of polar weather
> > cells..no mixture of tropical and polar wether cells. Equals an ice age in polar
> > regions, especially the north.
> >
>
> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
That is patently false and you obviously know nothing about this issue.
Global warming is a certainty and you will not find one credible
scientist to say otherwise. Even the most radical skeptics concede that
the atmosphere has been and is getting warmer. Where there is still
some debate is in what's causing it, and even that debate is heavily
lopsided in favor of greenhouse gas emissions being the cause or a
contributing factor. Only an idiot would argue at this point that
global warming is a myth. Even the biggest idiot of them all, George W.
Bush, concedes this point.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 21:07:24
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:39:06 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ..actually, the pseudu science says there is no global warming. The real
>>>>> science is tha tthere is global warming. *ONE* report about known properties of
>>>>> the sun having a pourely specualtive effect on weather is pseudoscience, for
>>>>> example.
>>>> The variability of the sun is known to effect the earth's temperature
>>>> because there are historical records to prove this effect.
>>> Correlations are not indicative of causality. It's pseudoscientific. The correlation
>>> will be there if the cause is real, but the correlation itself does not make the
>>> cause real. The data on global warming are fairly substantial. No question
>>> increasing CO2 in the atmpsphere increaes the retention of heat in the atmpsphere,
>>> for example. The only legitimate debate is the effect. IMHO, the increse in CO2 and
>>> decrease in photosynthesis feedback positively on each other. Another is that the
>>> effect in say NYC is likely to be less than the effect in the tropics. The model I
>>> think is most robust is the one that says we will get an isolation of polar weather
>>> cells..no mixture of tropical and polar wether cells. Equals an ice age in polar
>>> regions, especially the north.
>>>
>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>
>
> That is patently false and you obviously know nothing about this issue.
> Global warming is a certainty and you will not find one credible
> scientist to say otherwise. Even the most radical skeptics concede that
> the atmosphere has been and is getting warmer. Where there is still
> some debate is in what's causing it, and even that debate is heavily
> lopsided in favor of greenhouse gas emissions being the cause or a
> contributing factor. Only an idiot would argue at this point that
> global warming is a myth. Even the biggest idiot of them all, George W.
> Bush, concedes this point.
>
What caused the last ice age? What preceded the last ice age and what
caused it?
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 21:30:43
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> What caused the last ice age?
cold weather?
> What preceded the last ice age
warmer weather?
> and what
> caused it?
I was born in 61 - how the heck should I know?
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 20 Nov 2006 21:43:37
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> What caused the last ice age?
>
> cold weather?
>
>> What preceded the last ice age
>
> warmer weather?
>
>> and what
>> caused it?
>
> I was born in 61 - how the heck should I know?
>
Whose to say its not a cycle?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 02:47:48
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> What caused the last ice age?
>>
>> cold weather?
>>
>>> What preceded the last ice age
>>
>> warmer weather?
>>
>>> and what
>>> caused it?
>>
>> I was born in 61 - how the heck should I know?
>>
>
> Whose to say its not a cycle?
Life might be. As soon as I get hypnotized and go back 100 lives; I will
inquire about the ice age from someone first hand. :-)
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 21 Nov 2006 02:31:40
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>
>>What caused the last ice age?
>
>
> cold weather?
>
>
>>What preceded the last ice age
>
>
> warmer weather?
>
>
>>and what
>>caused it?
>
>
> I was born in 61 - how the heck should I know?
>
See what I mean? Its just a troll!
Joe
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 07:36:29
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2006, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote:
>
> > It's just his opinion, with no specific causal theory of his own.
>
> You didn't read the paper, did you? Not only does he have a theory, but
> makes predictions based on it as well.
>
> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
I read the paper. I can attribute anything I want to general phenomena.
The "cycles" arguement is totally lame. I can invent a cycle for
anything and make it fit any data I want.
The take home to me on all this is that we have substantially degreaded
the environment over the years, and the effects have been tremendous.
Even I can recall as kid seeing birds of various species all along
power lines. Today all we see are trees filled with blackbirds. The
devastation of bird communities has been astonishing, but nobody
notices it, which is amazing in itself!
To attribute a bad hurricane year to global warming is absurd, but if
you look at the deforestation of the planet from say about 200AD till
the present, and look at climate changes throughout the world, it's
been rather relentless. The bogus nature of the arguements against
global warming, the cycle thing just another in a long line, makes the
global warming arguement a lot stronger to me.
"The paper" is not a scientific paper in any sense. It isn't even a
review article. It is an op-ed kinda statement. The guy has a right to
his opinion, but with no real data in there, it doesn't hold much
water. You want to tell me some model is not valid, I want more than
just the statement that you don't think it is valid and some vague
cycles arguement.
Is there any support for the idea of imminent ice ages due to global
warming? No, of course not, nor is there any evidence of massive
hurricanes, but overall environmental degradation at the current
ongoing rate will be the downfall of our civilization. There is no
doubt at all of this in my mind. We know better, but we continue on,
hoping for miracles. We don't even have 1 weeks supply of food in the
system in the US. Most people haven't a clue how to produce food; they
forage for food in supermarkets, expecting someone else to magically
make the food appear there! Thats scary to me. More scary than fascist
Islam, more scary than North Korea nukes, and no one cares about it.
You get any sort of food shortage in this country, and you will see a
total breakdown in order. Total chaos...and we've come close a couple
of times...a corn crop failure here, a drought there...but we had
enough excess ...but you look at how little land is under cultivation
these days...and it's scary to me.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 04:41:07
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 20-Nov-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> Is there any support for the idea of imminent ice ages due to global
> warming? No, of course not, nor is there any evidence of massive
> hurricanes, but overall environmental degradation at the current
> ongoing rate will be the downfall of our civilization. There is no
> doubt at all of this in my mind. We know better, but we continue on,
> hoping for miracles. We don't even have 1 weeks supply of food in the
> system in the US. Most people haven't a clue how to produce food; they
> forage for food in supermarkets, expecting someone else to magically
> make the food appear there! Thats scary to me. More scary than fascist
> Islam, more scary than North Korea nukes, and no one cares about it.
> You get any sort of food shortage in this country, and you will see a
> total breakdown in order. Total chaos...and we've come close a couple
> of times...a corn crop failure here, a drought there...but we had
> enough excess ...but you look at how little land is under cultivation
> these days...and it's scary to me.
Frankly so am I. After reading "Collapse: How socities choose to fail or
succeed" how could one not be.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 07:23:04
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2006, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Reports are one thing. Science is another. The "spin" is represented by
> > the "reports" that claim there is no global warming.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "global warming." If you mean a rise in temps,
> that is a fact. If you mean a man made cause or exacerbation to explain this
> fact then your statement seems a bit categoric.
>
>
> > What do the real climatologists think, especially the
> > ones who spend their lives investigating phenomena like this. It's pretty
> > universal.
>
> Dr. Wm Gray is not a climatologist?
> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 07:08:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > >
> > Just wait until she is on the campaign trail and has to speak
> > extemporaneously. She will take her large feet and shove both of them
> > into here mouth at the same time over and over and over again.
>
> Didn't seem to hurt Bush.
HRC has been on the campaign trail twice for herself, twice for her
husband. I've heard her speak extemporaneously many times. She does
just fine. And as GWB has amply demonstrated, an ability to speak
extemporaneously is not a prerequisite to getting elected.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 05:43:47
From:
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 13:15:16 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:
>
> >> Change always matters. Climate changes matters a lot. Global
> >> cooling moved the Huns into the Roman Empire. Global warming
> >> temporarily moved the Norse into Iceland
> >
> >What do you mean by temporarily, you mean that there are no Norse in
> >Iceland now?
>
> You truncated my sentence.
I snipped it for brevity but I ask you again what do you mean by
temorarily?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 01:07:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On 20 Nov 2006 05:43:47 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:
>> >What do you mean by temporarily, you mean that there are no Norse in
>> >Iceland now?
>>
>> You truncated my sentence.
>
>I snipped it for brevity but I ask you again what do you mean by
>temorarily?
They were expanding at great rate for a while, then their expansionism
stopped, and even dropped back.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 02:07:26
From:
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
multi wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 13:15:16 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:
>
> >
> >Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On 18 Nov 2006 16:49:16 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ok....there is global warming. Wouldn't be the first time either,
> >> >since it is warmer than times during the Ice Age. Real question
> >> >is....does it really matter if the earth is warming?
> >>
> >> Change always matters. Climate changes matters a lot. Global
> >> cooling moved the Huns into the Roman Empire. Global warming
> >> temporarily moved the Norse into Iceland
> >
> >What do you mean by temporarily, you mean that there are no Norse in
> >Iceland now?
>
> He probably meant Greenland.
He wrote "Iceland" didn=B4t he?
It=B4s like writing Mexico when you are talking about the USA, I mean
they are right next to one another.
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 07:03:11
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> The_Professor wrote:
> >>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>> annika1980 wrote:
> >>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> >>>>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> >>>>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> >>>>>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> >>>>>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >>>>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> >>>>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> >>>>> debated.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
> >>>> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
> >>> Fine. State the natural cycle and show how it explains all the
> >>> phenomena global warming theory explains. A cycle for this and a cycle
> >>> is a lame response. You need to unite as many of the facts as possible
> >>> with the one theory, not have special theories for every fact.
> >>>
> >> We are watching a phenomena on a very large scale that can't be modeled
> >> or reliably predicted, guessed maybe but not predicted.
> >>
> >> Half the earth is heating up while the other half is cooling off each
> >> and every day.
> >>
> >> The earth is progressing from its birth towards its death. What happens
> >> to a planet as it dies? What are the causes of that death. Are the
> >> external, extra-planetary, events that can cause a planets death?
> >>
> >> Bring into the equation the observed information regarding Mars' own
> >> global warming and you really do have to give this whole man made global
> >> warming cause quite a bit of direct scrutiny.
> >
> >
> > Yes, and unlike you, the scientific community has been giving it quite
> > a bit of direct scrutiny for decades. And the overwhelming majority of
> > climate scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting
> > the global climate. Those are facts. Maybe they're wronng, but I doubt
> > it. To have consensus of that magnitude and for that length of time
> > turn out to be wrong would be truly extraordinary.
> >
>
> What cause the last ice age? What caused the cooling? What preceded the
> last ice age and what caused it?
I have no idea.
>
> What does the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe we
> should be doing to stop the current global warming?
Most of them believe we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 21:15:17
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>> The_Professor wrote:
>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>>> annika1980 wrote:
>>>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
>>>>>>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
>>>>>>>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
>>>>>>>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
>>>>>>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
>>>>>>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
>>>>>>> debated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
>>>>>> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
>>>>> Fine. State the natural cycle and show how it explains all the
>>>>> phenomena global warming theory explains. A cycle for this and a cycle
>>>>> is a lame response. You need to unite as many of the facts as possible
>>>>> with the one theory, not have special theories for every fact.
>>>>>
>>>> We are watching a phenomena on a very large scale that can't be modeled
>>>> or reliably predicted, guessed maybe but not predicted.
>>>>
>>>> Half the earth is heating up while the other half is cooling off each
>>>> and every day.
>>>>
>>>> The earth is progressing from its birth towards its death. What happens
>>>> to a planet as it dies? What are the causes of that death. Are the
>>>> external, extra-planetary, events that can cause a planets death?
>>>>
>>>> Bring into the equation the observed information regarding Mars' own
>>>> global warming and you really do have to give this whole man made global
>>>> warming cause quite a bit of direct scrutiny.
>>>
>>> Yes, and unlike you, the scientific community has been giving it quite
>>> a bit of direct scrutiny for decades. And the overwhelming majority of
>>> climate scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting
>>> the global climate. Those are facts. Maybe they're wronng, but I doubt
>>> it. To have consensus of that magnitude and for that length of time
>>> turn out to be wrong would be truly extraordinary.
>>>
>> What cause the last ice age? What caused the cooling? What preceded the
>> last ice age and what caused it?
>
> I have no idea.
I thought you were a smart sum-bitch or at least thats how you try to
come across. If you are arguing that our current global warming is
mostly, more than 50%, human caused I would have thought that you knew
what caused the last ice age and the warming that preceded it.
>> What does the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe we
>> should be doing to stop the current global warming?
>
>
> Most of them believe we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
What are we going to do about all of the animal flatulence that puts CO2
into the atmosphere?
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 05:43:33
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > Some of us have more developed receivers and we hear God now.
>
> Next time you talk to him; ask him why he didn't make more chicks look like
> J-Lo or Jennie McCarthey.
I talked to God just the other day.
She's still black and she's still pissed off at Greg Norman.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 20:07:43
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Some of us have more developed receivers and we hear God now.
>>
>> Next time you talk to him; ask him why he didn't make more chicks
>> look like J-Lo or Jennie McCarthey.
>
> I talked to God just the other day.
> She's still black and she's still pissed off at Greg Norman.
Tell her to cut him a break because his shirts have that really cool rainbow
fishie.
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 21 Nov 2006 14:54:49
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
X-No-Archive: yes
Sparky wrote:
>>
> btw, this years dearth of hurricanes is being blamed by some on a slight
> cooling of ocean waters where they form..
>
A total of 14 hurricanes this year for us...so far! 5 atlantic and 9
eastern pacific. Last year we had 22, 7 eastern pacific and 15
atlantic. Last year was unusually active. Other recent years are more
like this year.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 06:16:54
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>> The_Professor wrote:
> >>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>>>> annika1980 wrote:
> >>>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Spin it any way you want. "Global Warming" is not a certainty, it is an
> >>>>>>>> unsubstantiated observation. For every report you cite that purports
> >>>>>>>> that "Global Warming" is going to doom the planet in 30 years, hey that
> >>>>>>>> sounds familiar, I can find one that states that "Global Warming" is not
> >>>>>>>> occurring or is caused by extra-planetary forces.
> >>>>>>> I challenge you to produce even one reputable scientific report that
> >>>>>>> claims that global warming isn't occuring. It's cause is what is being
> >>>>>>> debated.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Correct, the cause is in question. Is it a natural cycle or is it a man
> >>>>>> made catastrophe? I am in the natural cycle camp.
> >>>>> Fine. State the natural cycle and show how it explains all the
> >>>>> phenomena global warming theory explains. A cycle for this and a cycle
> >>>>> is a lame response. You need to unite as many of the facts as possible
> >>>>> with the one theory, not have special theories for every fact.
> >>>>>
> >>>> We are watching a phenomena on a very large scale that can't be modeled
> >>>> or reliably predicted, guessed maybe but not predicted.
> >>>>
> >>>> Half the earth is heating up while the other half is cooling off each
> >>>> and every day.
> >>>>
> >>>> The earth is progressing from its birth towards its death. What happens
> >>>> to a planet as it dies? What are the causes of that death. Are the
> >>>> external, extra-planetary, events that can cause a planets death?
> >>>>
> >>>> Bring into the equation the observed information regarding Mars' own
> >>>> global warming and you really do have to give this whole man made global
> >>>> warming cause quite a bit of direct scrutiny.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, and unlike you, the scientific community has been giving it quite
> >>> a bit of direct scrutiny for decades. And the overwhelming majority of
> >>> climate scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting
> >>> the global climate. Those are facts. Maybe they're wronng, but I doubt
> >>> it. To have consensus of that magnitude and for that length of time
> >>> turn out to be wrong would be truly extraordinary.
> >>>
> >> What cause the last ice age? What caused the cooling? What preceded the
> >> last ice age and what caused it?
> >
> > I have no idea.
>
> I thought you were a smart sum-bitch or at least thats how you try to
> come across. If you are arguing that our current global warming is
> mostly, more than 50%, human caused I would have thought that you knew
> what caused the last ice age and the warming that preceded it.
>
> >> What does the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe we
> >> should be doing to stop the current global warming?
> >
> >
> > Most of them believe we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> What are we going to do about all of the animal flatulence that puts CO2
> into the atmosphere?
Animal flatulence emits methane, not CO2.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 15:07:12
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164205014.466105.236890@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Most of them believe we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
>>
>> What are we going to do about all of the animal flatulence that puts CO2
>> into the atmosphere?
>
> Animal flatulence emits methane, not CO2.
Both are greenhouse gases, and in any case some of the methane converts to
CO2 in the atmosphere..
But it is not incredibly important. Animal fart carbon (i.e. methane & CO2)
ultimately comes from atmospheric CO2 recently fixed by plants (in contrast
to petroleum, which comes from CO2 fixed several million years ago). So,
for every carbon atom your Hereford emits into the atmosphere, there was a
hard-working blade of grass busily taking one from the atmosphere a few
weeks ago.
But animal fart carbon is three times less 'powerful' in terms of the
greenhouse effect, at least in it's methane form. So it appears the idea
that they cause an increase in the greenhouse effect is a little shaky. At
worst, they represent a slight reversal in the GE-reducing work of plants
fixating atmospheric carbon, resulting in damage that is somewhat mitigated
by the fact that they are associated with feeding people.
So, to boil it down, animal farts are good for us!
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 10:24:34
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Checked Gas Prices Lately?
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:07:12 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:
>So, to boil it down, animal farts are good for us!
Those of us who belong to the animal kingdom will be relieved to know
this.
|
|
