In article ,
says...
Hi Mike,

I've taken the liberty to snip some of the previous text, in an effort
to keep things from becoming too unwieldy. Hopefully, I haven't made
our conversation too difficult to follow.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:26:37 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. What exactly did the "Left"
misinterpret and what lies did our [politicians?] tell us?

The article cites the faulty conclusions based on the evidence that
was (or was not) available at the time. The global cooling version
of 'the sky is falling' was the result. The 'lying' comment was a
reference to the reasons for our current foray into Iraq.

Researchers had not formulated a cohesive "voice" on global climate
change until quite recently; if there was one clear and unified voice
thirty or forty years ago I'm simply not aware of it. Now, with the
advent of better tools that allow us to collect and analyze more data,
with greater resources available to undertake this work and with the
collaborative efforts of many thousands of people in a wide range of
disciplines from all over the world, the evidence is becoming evermore
clear and some would argue irrefutable.

In any event, let's take a closer look at the reasons why this author
claims climate researchers may have mistakenly believed our climate
would be cooling, not warming as is now generally understood.

The first appears to be the most damning -- that a thirty-year cooling
period between the 1940s and 1970s served as a public canvas upon
which these discussions were sketched, and that in the absence of good
data, the resulting interpretations were generally less well refined
than they should have been. Fair enough.

His second argument is that the earth's natural temperature rhythms
had led many to believe we are about due to enter another cooling
phase and if you view the graphs, that doesn't seem unreasonable. But
as the author notes, we shouldn't consider the next ice age as
"predictable" nor "imminent" and since human activity also affects
global climate, these natural forces may no longer be sufficient, in
of themselves, to make global cooling a fate d'compli.

Thirdly, and I believe this to be the most crucial of all, air borne
pollution (largely sulphate aerosols and fine particulates) were
generally understood to have a cooling effect on our climate. Back
then, we were pumping ever increasing amounts of sulphur and fine
particulates into the air, which was reducing the amount of sunlight
reaching the earth's surface, i.e., "global dimming". Just a short
time later, two very important transformations occurred. One,
political and legislative measures, due in large part to public
concerns over acid rain and urban air quality, led to the introduction
of new technology that greatly lessened the amount of sulphur and
particulate we emitted (i.e., scrubbers and precipitators on coal
fired plants, the switch to natural gas and low-sulphur coal, the
reduction in sulphur in diesel and other petroleum-based fuels, etc.)
and, secondly, the remarkable and unprecedented slowing in the growth
of electricity demand. Electricity demand up until the late 70's was
growing at seven to ten per cent per year; today, it runs in the range
of one to two per cent. Electricity demand here in North America was
literally doubling every seven years and utility forecasters predicted
this rate of growth would continue indefinitely and, of course, that
much of it would be met by dirty, coal-fired generation. However,
after the energy shocks of the 70's and with the corresponding
structural changes to our economies, this new growth disappeared
almost overnight. It's therefore unfair to fault climate researchers
for either of these two unforeseen developments.

The last point is with regards to "interpretations of future changes
in the Earth's orbit" that have been undergone further revision and
refinement. As our understanding of this relationship has evolved,
the potential cooling effects have been scaled back. When new data
comes to light, we're sometimes forced to rethink or adjust these
connections. That's just how these things work out or, in other
words, crap happens.

While I understand and agree with much of what you're saying, you
must consider that the 'controversy' part of this issue is not borne
of science. The debate over man's contribution to both global
warming and global cooling is a political issue, not a scientific
one. The public was fed the global cooling crap back in the 70's and
we were led on a collective guilt trip toward salvation and nothing
happened. We are now being fed the global warming crap and are being
led on another collective guilt trip toward salvation. The maddening
part is that both loads of crap emanated from the same end of the
political spectrum and both phenomena had the same cause - our
collective disdain for the environment. The doomsayers were every
bit as sure of the 'science' that they interpreted for us then as
they are of the science that they are interpreting for us today.
That's what's at the root of the cynicism. The science may, indeed,
be rock solid this time (although, as I said, the models are
notoriously bad at predicting), but we were already fooled once.
It's perceived more like 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' than 'Chicken
Little'. Again, I'm not debating the science of the issue. I'm
simply trying to explain where the controversy arose.

There's a curious statement made in that article:

"[...] they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely
appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30
years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of
climate science."

In other words, "Last time, were didn't know what we were talking
about. This time, we're really, really sure!"

(that doesn't sound just a little bit arrogant to you?)

Sorry, I disagree. I read this to be "there's a strong possibility
the earth is entering another cooling phase (perhaps not an
unreasonable assumption given what climate scientists then knew about
the earth's natural temperature cycles), but until we do more
research, we really don't know for sure". That really doesn't strike
me as arrogant at all; to the contrary, it strikes me as being humble,
truthful and prudently cautious.

The implication that 'this time we got it right' is where I see
arrogance. There's no need for more research - we've already nailed
it.

I don't think anyone is claiming we've finished the exam and can now
put our pencils down.

The most vocal (and press-worthy) GW zealots are saying just that.

To the contrary, I think it's safe to say
climate researchers want to dig deeper and continue collecting data so
that our understanding is further enhanced. As I said before, our
world is evolving, we're impacting our earth in many different ways;
nothing stays the same. I don't see any arrogance or smugness in this
whatsoever.

I think it's fair to say our understanding of global climate has
evolved considerably over the past thirty years and certainly the
tools available to scientists are far more rich and diverse. In terms
of computing power alone, my laptop is far more powerful than any
supercomputer available thirty years ago. And look at how information
is shared today; with the internet, it's immediate/real time. Thirty
years ago, this type of information would have been shared largely by
printed journals, with perhaps four to six months lead-time.

We've come a long way in thirty years, to be sure. That's what we
were saying back then, too. And we were just as confident (arrogant)
in our predictions then as we are today. We'll be saying the same
thirty years from now and we'll be smug because we'll finally know
everything. But the sophisticated computer models that are making
these dire predictions today still can't accurately 'predict' what's
happened in the past. Yet we're trying to set policy based on what
they're telling us about the future. Consider the most recent
hurricane season. We were told to prepare for a record season in
terms of both number and intensity. (oops!)

Scientists can't sit down at a computer, press a button and expect the
correct answer to spit out every time. Our understanding of weather
and climate, like most things in this world, is incomplete and will
likely remain so well into the future. The real question is, are we
getting any better at this? Personally, I think we are; others may
disagree. Will there be missteps along the way? Yes, but, on the
whole, I expect we'll continue to improve with every passing day.

The other question I have to ask is how long are we prepared to sit on
our hands and do nothing waiting for the proverbial smoking gun to
materialize, whatever it may be. Can you tell me exactly what it is
you want before you'd be willing to take some course of action? And
can you tell me how you would be able to determine the validity of
this smoking gun or the credibility of its presenters?

Kyoto was a defining moment for 'the cause'. The most populous and,
arguably, most polluting countries in the world were specifically
exempt. The predictable result would have been an acceleration in
the shift of manufacturing from the 'offending' factories in the US
to the smoke and CO2 belching factories in China and India and a
corresponding INcrease in global CO2 emissions (even Al Gore alluded
to that possibility). American factories that were pro-active enough
to have cleaned up their act would not be given credit for their
previous efforts, rather, their starting point would have been set at
their current levels (THAT was cited as the single provision that
killed the treaty in the US, BTW). But, on the whole, there was
simply too much wrong with it. Kyoto smacked of politicism.

These are very different worlds. Back in 1977, I would be driving a
Plymouth Volarie. Do you think anyone would be driving a car like
that today?

I wouldn't have been caught driving one even then ;-)

Really? So what did you drive? A Pinto? A Vega? A Pacer?

In 1977, my wife and I were sharing a '64 Chevy BelAir and a '68
Mustang.

Note, I'm not saying that global warming is a myth. Indeed, the
controversy is not over the warming, itself, rather it's over its
causes and what, if anything, we should do about it. I'm merely
pointing out that the skepticism is not without just cause.

Cheers,
Paul

# Fred # wrote:


Somewhere I've read margarine was invented, before it was placed on our
dinner tables, for the consumption by hogs. Great stuff, cheap, a profit
maker, and fatten the hogs in record time for market. But the farmers
noticed the hogs were dying off in great numbers so it was banned. So what
did they do with all that surplus margarine? Some entrepreneur noticed with
a little coloring and flavoring added, it could pass for butter substitute.
How it was advertised as heather than butter I never know but I guess in
those days we thought cigarettes were cool too.




I would be very interested in knowing the source of this information. If
I can verify it to be factual, I will add it to our database

Thanks!

Lenny



From our website, www.FoodReference.com

----------------------------------------------------------

"MARGARINE

Margarine was developed in 1869 by Hippolyte Mege-Mouries, a French
chemist. He received a U.S. patent in 1873. Napoleon had offered a prize
for a butter substitute for his army and navy, because butter spoiled
easily. Mege-Mouries margarine used mainly beef fat. Later formulations
used a combination of animal fats and vegetable oils, and today most
margarines use only vegetable oils. Commercial production began in the
U.S. in about 1874, to the horror of the dairy industry. For years many
states, especially dairy states, outlawed margarine with yellow
coloring. The Federal government and many states also passed heavy taxes
on yellow margarine. (Without the yellow coloring, margarine has the
unappetizing look of lard). I can remember when I was a kid in New York,
my mother would buy pale white margarine in a soft plastic pouch, with
an orange dot in the middle. You had to knead the pouch to distribute
the color throughout the margarine. How things change. Today, most of
the large national dairy companies manufacture margarine.

There were many patents granted for various formulas and manufacturing
techniques for margarine in the U.S. beginning in 1871.

In 1877, the state of New York passed a law to tax on 'oleomargarine.'
When a court voided a ban on margarine in New York, dairy militants
turned their attention to Washington, resulting in Congressional passage
of the Margarine Act of 1886.The purpose was to protect dairymen and
their product, real butter.

It was only in 1967 that yellow margarine could be sold in Wisconsin. It
was the last state to allow coloring to be added to margarine."

In article , Leonardo wrote:
# Fred # wrote:


Somewhere I've read margarine was invented, before it was placed on our
dinner tables, for the consumption by hogs. Great stuff, cheap, a profit
maker, and fatten the hogs in record time for market. But the farmers
noticed the hogs were dying off in great numbers so it was banned. So what
did they do with all that surplus margarine? Some entrepreneur noticed with
a little coloring and flavoring added, it could pass for butter substitute.
How it was advertised as heather than butter I never know but I guess in
those days we thought cigarettes were cool too.


I would be very interested in knowing the source of this information. If
I can verify it to be factual, I will add it to our database

Don't bother -- it's utter nonsense. The only "source" is someone's fevered
imagination. What you have below is largely correct. The only thing that
really stands out to me is the reference to "Napoleon". You might want to
clarify that, in 1869, it would have to have been Napoleon the Third, Louis
Napoleon. "Napoleon", without any qualifiers, is usually understood to mean
Napoleon Bonaparte, who died in 1821.

From our website, www.FoodReference.com

"MARGARINE

Margarine was developed in 1869 by Hippolyte Mege-Mouries, a French
chemist. He received a U.S. patent in 1873. Napoleon had offered a prize
for a butter substitute for his army and navy, because butter spoiled
easily. Mege-Mouries margarine used mainly beef fat. Later formulations
used a combination of animal fats and vegetable oils, and today most
margarines use only vegetable oils. Commercial production began in the
U.S. in about 1874, to the horror of the dairy industry. For years many
states, especially dairy states, outlawed margarine with yellow
coloring. The Federal government and many states also passed heavy taxes
on yellow margarine. (Without the yellow coloring, margarine has the
unappetizing look of lard). I can remember when I was a kid in New York,
my mother would buy pale white margarine in a soft plastic pouch, with
an orange dot in the middle. You had to knead the pouch to distribute
the color throughout the margarine. How things change. Today, most of
the large national dairy companies manufacture margarine.

There were many patents granted for various formulas and manufacturing
techniques for margarine in the U.S. beginning in 1871.

In 1877, the state of New York passed a law to tax on 'oleomargarine.'
When a court voided a ban on margarine in New York, dairy militants
turned their attention to Washington, resulting in Congressional passage
of the Margarine Act of 1886.The purpose was to protect dairymen and
their product, real butter.

It was only in 1967 that yellow margarine could be sold in Wisconsin. It
was the last state to allow coloring to be added to margarine."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Jan 25, 2:43 pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2007 09:58:16 -0800, wrote:

Yes, it is transfat that has been banned from NYC restaurants., which
is what I had in mind when I wrote the above. And of course margarine
that is made without transfats is still allowed. But it doens't
change the fact that 25 years ago, scientists claimed that magarine
made from transfat should be used to replace butter, which was supposed
to be bad. Margarines containing transfat were widely marketed,
complete with health benefit statements. And that proved to bad
advice, at least if they are right this time.Trans fats were added to a whole range of processed foods, including
margarine, for a several reasons but, principally, to improve taste
and to increase product shelf life. So there's no confusion, it was
not added to margarine because it was thought to offer any particular
heath benefits, in of itself.


Absolute BS. Were you even an adult then, so you would remember?
Anyone alive during the late 60s, 70's can tell you that margarine was
marketed as being a healthier alternative to butter because it did not
contain saturated fat. And health "experts" were spouting the exact
same advice. And what exactly was the point to margarine at all, if
not that it was supposed to be healthier? I don't think you'll find a
same person arguing that it tasted better. And it was about the same
price. The best any margarine can claim is that it's supposed to
taste like butter, which of course isn't true.

Sure, I know transfats have been around for 100 years and are added to
foods for a variety of reasons. But they most certainly were used to
make margarine, which we were told at the time was a healthy choice.




There were no recognized health risks
with the introduction of trans fats early one, but they became evident
over time, much in the same way the risks of continuing to add
increasing amounts of CO2 to our earth's atmosphere. That's pretty
much how science works.

That's what you'll say 10 years from now, when global warming goes out
the window too.




And as the link provided below shows, the Cleveland Clinic still
recommends the consumption of liquid and tub margarine over butter.

Just like there are scientists who question global warming.




And the irony of what NYC is doing is that had they passed similar laws
25 years ago, they would have forced restaurants to replace butter with
transfat. That's one reason why what NYC is doing is just plain
stupid. There is plenty of information out there already about
transfat. Many commercial products have already eliminated them, as
have many fast food chains. More laws aren't needed, especially given
that the "experts" have been wrong before. Individuals can decide for
themselves what they want to eat.I didn't realize I, as a consumer, had the choice of specifying my
meals be trans fat free. How does that work? Do I tell McDonalds,
Wendy's, Buger King, KFC, Taco Bell, et. all that I want it done "my
way"? When I sit down at a fine restaurant, do I ask the waiter which
foods contain trans fats? Would the restaurant and its staff even
know? Somehow, I don't think so.

Just eat at restaurants that have eliminated transfat. On your list,
that would be Wendy's and Taco Bell, with KFC being transfat free in a
couple months too. That's called excercising some personal choice
and responsibility, instead of expecting govt to take care of you.
Following your logic, since "experts" say all these fast food places
are bad for us even without transfat, we should just close them all
down.





If you want to learn more about the butter versus margarine debate,
see:http://www.clevelandclinic.org/heart...evention/askdi...



And this is not something new. Nutrionists have warned for years that
diets high in saturated and tans fats can greatly increase our risk of
obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart attack, stroke and colon cancer.
Concerns over hydrogenated oils date back at least twenty-five years.

Now that I disagree with There may have been some concern raised
starting 25 years ago, but what about the late 60s, 70s when the
experts told us to eat margarine, which was full of transfat, instead
of butter? And I would say the real consensus against transfat did
not occur until the last decade or so. Sure, you can go back and say
there was some research that suggested problems, but that is 20/20
hindsight.Isn't this much like the whole debate over global climate change? You
may be surprised to know scientists first warned of the dangers of
increased CO2 levels more than one hundred years ago. Here we are in
2007 having this conversation. What do you expect?

See:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...985653,00.html


What a source! The Guardian is widely recognized as an alarmist
commie rag with an agenda.






[....]





These references just talk about general factors that they think
contributed to previous warming/cooling cycles. Which is exactly the
point. No one knows for sure. Look at the graph going back 400K
years. It shows 5 peaks in temperature and CO2. Since man can only
possibly be responsible for the current peak, what explains the other
4? Also note that while the current peak is the largest of the 4
complete cycles, 4 cycles and 400K years is a just a brief instant in
Earth's history. We don;'t know how high other cycles got.

And then there is the issue of cause and effect. Just because CO2 and
temp rise and fail together doesn't mean CO2 caused the temp rise. It
could just as well be that the rise in temp caused the CO2 increase.
Especially since other gases, like Methane also have risen and fallen
with temp. Just like a soda can releases more CO2 when it's warm, so
too the oceans are less capable of holding gasses when the temp rises.
This is especially interesting given that temp peaks and leads CO2 by
about 800 years.

Finally, we also have the issue of how reliable estimates are of
exactly what the Earth's temperature was 400K years ago. No one was
around taking measurements, so we are left relying on proxies, which
are virtually impossible to verify.This article may help explain the difference between natural and
man-made carbon cycles:

http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/rele...ec-9-2003.html




I'd call that more trying to selectively look at ancient history to try
to make a case for global warming. The alarmists that want to blame
man for causing global warming have a problem, don;'t they? There are
cycles going back as far as we have data for, about 400K years, that
show these cycles. Yet, cars, power plants and locomotives have only
been around for 150 years. That leaves a problem. So, now this
idiot wants us to believe that man is responsible for 8000 years worth
of global warming:

"Beginning 8,000 years ago, humans reversed an expected decrease in CO2
by clearing forests in Europe, China, and India for croplands and
pasture (page 2).
Beginning 5,000 years ago, humans reversed an expected decrease in
methane by diverting water to irrigate rice and by tending large herds
of livestock (page 3). "


The more I read from clowns like this, the less credibility the whole
argument has. And this feeble argument still leaves another 392K years
to explain. What's next? That mans first cave fire did it? LOL

And I'm still waiting for the explanation of:

1 - If CO2 is causing global warming, then why in the previous 4 cycles
does temp start increasing 800-1600 years BEFORE CO2 levels increase?
That is like having a room with a ceiling that gets wet 6 hours AFTER
it starts to rain four times in a row. Following the logic of the
global warming folks, we should conclude that the wet spot on the
ceiling is causing it to rain, right? And completely dismiss the
possibility that it's the other way around or that there is some other
cause.

On Jan 26, 8:18 am, Mike Hartigan wrote:
In article ,
says...





Hi Mike,

I've taken the liberty to snip some of the previous text, in an effort
to keep things from becoming too unwieldy. Hopefully, I haven't made
our conversation too difficult to follow.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:26:37 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. What exactly did the "Left"
misinterpret and what lies did our [politicians?] tell us?

The article cites the faulty conclusions based on the evidence that
was (or was not) available at the time. The global cooling version
of 'the sky is falling' was the result. The 'lying' comment was a
reference to the reasons for our current foray into Iraq.

Researchers had not formulated a cohesive "voice" on global climate
change until quite recently; if there was one clear and unified voice
thirty or forty years ago I'm simply not aware of it. Now, with the
advent of better tools that allow us to collect and analyze more data,
with greater resources available to undertake this work and with the
collaborative efforts of many thousands of people in a wide range of
disciplines from all over the world, the evidence is becoming evermore
clear and some would argue irrefutable.

In any event, let's take a closer look at the reasons why this author
claims climate researchers may have mistakenly believed our climate
would be cooling, not warming as is now generally understood.

The first appears to be the most damning -- that a thirty-year cooling
period between the 1940s and 1970s served as a public canvas upon
which these discussions were sketched, and that in the absence of good
data, the resulting interpretations were generally less well refined
than they should have been. Fair enough.

His second argument is that the earth's natural temperature rhythms
had led many to believe we are about due to enter another cooling
phase and if you view the graphs, that doesn't seem unreasonable. But
as the author notes, we shouldn't consider the next ice age as
"predictable" nor "imminent" and since human activity also affects
global climate, these natural forces may no longer be sufficient, in
of themselves, to make global cooling a fate d'compli.

Thirdly, and I believe this to be the most crucial of all, air borne
pollution (largely sulphate aerosols and fine particulates) were
generally understood to have a cooling effect on our climate. Back
then, we were pumping ever increasing amounts of sulphur and fine
particulates into the air, which was reducing the amount of sunlight
reaching the earth's surface, i.e., "global dimming". Just a short
time later, two very important transformations occurred. One,
political and legislative measures, due in large part to public
concerns over acid rain and urban air quality, led to the introduction
of new technology that greatly lessened the amount of sulphur and
particulate we emitted (i.e., scrubbers and precipitators on coal
fired plants, the switch to natural gas and low-sulphur coal, the
reduction in sulphur in diesel and other petroleum-based fuels, etc.)
and, secondly, the remarkable and unprecedented slowing in the growth
of electricity demand. Electricity demand up until the late 70's was
growing at seven to ten per cent per year; today, it runs in the range
of one to two per cent. Electricity demand here in North America was
literally doubling every seven years and utility forecasters predicted
this rate of growth would continue indefinitely and, of course, that
much of it would be met by dirty, coal-fired generation. However,
after the energy shocks of the 70's and with the corresponding
structural changes to our economies, this new growth disappeared
almost overnight. It's therefore unfair to fault climate researchers
for either of these two unforeseen developments.

The last point is with regards to "interpretations of future changes
in the Earth's orbit" that have been undergone further revision and
refinement. As our understanding of this relationship has evolved,
the potential cooling effects have been scaled back. When new data
comes to light, we're sometimes forced to rethink or adjust these
connections. That's just how these things work out or, in other
words, crap happens.While I understand and agree with much of what you're saying, you
must consider that the 'controversy' part of this issue is not borne
of science. The debate over man's contribution to both global
warming and global cooling is a political issue, not a scientific
one. The public was fed the global cooling crap back in the 70's and
we were led on a collective guilt trip toward salvation and nothing
happened. We are now being fed the global warming crap and are being
led on another collective guilt trip toward salvation. The maddening
part is that both loads of crap emanated from the same end of the
political spectrum and both phenomena had the same cause - our
collective disdain for the environment. The doomsayers were every
bit as sure of the 'science' that they interpreted for us then as
they are of the science that they are interpreting for us today.
That's what's at the root of the cynicism. The science may, indeed,
be rock solid this time (although, as I said, the models are
notoriously bad at predicting), but we were already fooled once.

Regarding scientific evidence and credibility, I'd like a convincing
explanation of exactly how the 4 previous documented cycles of global
warming/CO2 increase, going back 400K years occurred, given that our
huge use of fossil fuels only occurred in the last couple hundred
years. And I'd also like an explanation for the fact that in these
previous 4 cycles, temp always started to rise 800 to 1600 years BEFORE
CO2 started to rise.

What shoots credibility is some of the boneheaded feeble explanations I
have seen. A typical one is "Well, yes it's true that temp did rise
first in all these cycles, but that only means that CO2 was not
responsible for the first 800 to 1600 years of the rise." Huh? And
these guys are supposed to be "experts." If you gave that explanation
on a high school science exam, you'd fail.




It's perceived more like 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' than 'Chicken
Little'. Again, I'm not debating the science of the issue. I'm
simply trying to explain where the controversy arose.





There's a curious statement made in that article:

"[...] they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely
appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30
years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of
climate science."

In other words, "Last time, were didn't know what we were talking
about. This time, we're really, really sure!"

(that doesn't sound just a little bit arrogant to you?)

Sorry, I disagree. I read this to be "there's a strong possibility
the earth is entering another cooling phase (perhaps not an
unreasonable assumption given what climate scientists then knew about
the earth's natural temperature cycles), but until we do more
research, we really don't know for sure". That really doesn't strike
me as arrogant at all; to the contrary, it strikes me as being humble,
truthful and prudently cautious.

The implication that 'this time we got it right' is where I see
arrogance. There's no need for more research - we've already nailed
it.

I don't think anyone is claiming we've finished the exam and can now
put our pencils down. The most vocal (and press-worthy) GW zealots are saying just that.





To the contrary, I think it's safe to say
climate researchers want to dig deeper and continue collecting data so
that our understanding is further enhanced. As I said before, our
world is evolving, we're impacting our earth in many different ways;
nothing stays the same. I don't see any arrogance or smugness in this
whatsoever.

I think it's fair to say our understanding of global climate has
evolved considerably over the past thirty years and certainly the
tools available to scientists are far more rich and diverse. In terms
of computing power alone, my laptop is far more powerful than any
supercomputer available thirty years ago. And look at how information
is shared today; with the internet, it's immediate/real time. Thirty
years ago, this type of information would have been shared largely by
printed journals, with perhaps four to six months lead-time.

We've come a long way in thirty years, to be sure. That's what we
were saying back then, too. And we were just as confident (arrogant)
in our predictions then as we are today. We'll be saying the same
thirty years from now and we'll be smug because we'll finally know
everything. But the sophisticated computer models that are making
these dire predictions today still can't accurately 'predict' what's
happened in the past. Yet we're trying to set policy based on what
they're telling us about the future. Consider the most recent
hurricane season. We were told to prepare for a record season in
terms of both number and intensity. (oops!)

Scientists can't sit down at a computer, press a button and expect the
correct answer to spit out every time. Our understanding of weather
and climate, like most things in this world, is incomplete and will
likely remain so well into the future. The real question is, are we
getting any better at this? Personally, I think we are; others may
disagree. Will there be missteps along the way? Yes, but, on the
whole, I expect we'll continue to improve with every passing day.

The other question I have to ask is how long are we prepared to sit on
our hands and do nothing waiting for the proverbial smoking gun to
materialize, whatever it may be. Can you tell me exactly what it is
you want before you'd be willing to take some course of action? And
can you tell me how you would be able to determine the validity of
this smoking gun or the credibility of its presenters?Kyoto was a defining moment for 'the cause'. The most populous and,
arguably, most polluting countries in the world were specifically
exempt. The predictable result would have been an acceleration in
the shift of manufacturing from the 'offending' factories in the US
to the smoke and CO2 belching factories in China and India and a
corresponding INcrease in global CO2 emissions (even Al Gore alluded
to that ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

In article .com, wrote:

Absolute BS. Were you even an adult then, so you would remember?
Anyone alive during the late 60s, 70's can tell you that margarine was
marketed as being a healthier alternative to butter because it did not
contain saturated fat. And health "experts" were spouting the exact
same advice. And what exactly was the point to margarine at all, if
not that it was supposed to be healthier?

Cheaper. *Much* cheaper.


I don't think you'll find a
same person arguing that it tasted better. And it was about the same
price.

Huh?

I've been buying my own groceries for nearly thirty years, and butter and
margarine have *never* been "about the same price" during that time. A pound
of butter is, and has been, quite consistently about double the price of a
pound of margarine.

The dairy companies raised a huge hue and cry when margarine first came on the
market -- precisely because it *was* a lot cheaper than butter, and that is
the basis of its market success. If it had been "about the same price", it
would have represented no threat to dairy producers, and never gained much
market share, exactly because it doesn't taste nearly as good: if butter's the
same price, why buy margarine? It wasn't sold originally as a *healthy*
alternative to butter, it was sold as a *cheap* alternative to butter.

The best any margarine can claim is that it's supposed to
taste like butter, which of course isn't true.

One of the worst offenders IMO is the brand "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter".
**I** sure as hell can believe it isn't butter, and as far as I'm concerned,
it's a pretty poor excuse for margarine, too. I'd been thinking about buying
some... until I had some at a friend's house. Yecch.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Jan 26, 10:01 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
Absolute BS. Were you even an adult then, so you would remember?
Anyone alive during the late 60s, 70's can tell you that margarine was
marketed as being a healthier alternative to butter because it did not
contain saturated fat. And health "experts" were spouting the exact
same advice. And what exactly was the point to margarine at all, if
not that it was supposed to be healthier?

Cheaper. *Much* cheaper.

Actually, during the early part of the 70's, margarine was more
expensive than butter due to the incredibly volatile grain market at
the time (that's where they get the oils from). In your words, "Much"
more expensive. Yet it continued to sell well, due, in no small part,
to its perceived health benefits over butter. A restaurant that I
worked for at the time started buying a butter/margarine blend to save
money. Prior to that they were using pure margarine and flaunted it on
their menu as their effort to help their customers maintain a healthy
lifestyle. And yes, I was alive and a functional, adult-like member of
society at the time ;-)

I don't think you'll find a
same person arguing that it tasted better. And it was about the same
price. Huh?

I've been buying my own groceries for nearly thirty years, and butter and
margarine have *never* been "about the same price" during that time. A pound
of butter is, and has been, quite consistently about double the price of a
pound of margarine.

Not counting those periods when it cost less than butter. Granted,
it's usually the other way around, but it never lost it's allure, even
when people were paying more for it. Even today, the 'premium' spreads
(many of which are not called margarine anymore due to some
technicality) are very close to the price of butter - around $1.50/lb.

The dairy companies raised a huge hue and cry when margarine first came on the
market -- precisely because it *was* a lot cheaper than butter, and that is
the basis of its market success. If it had been "about the same price", it
would have represented no threat to dairy producers, and never gained much
market share, exactly because it doesn't taste nearly as good: if butter's the
same price, why buy margarine? It wasn't sold originally as a *healthy*
alternative to butter, it was sold as a *cheap* alternative to butter.

Once the price of the grains that went into it soared, the marketing
departments latched on to the 'healthy' thing. And they had the health
nuts to help them in that effort.

The best any margarine can claim is that it's supposed to
taste like butter, which of course isn't true.One of the worst offenders IMO is the brand "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter".
**I** sure as hell can believe it isn't butter, and as far as I'm concerned,
it's a pretty poor excuse for margarine, too. I'd been thinking about buying
some... until I had some at a friend's house. Yecch.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Leonardo" wrote in message
et...
# Fred # wrote:


Somewhere I've read margarine was invented, before it was placed on our
dinner tables, for the consumption by hogs. Great stuff, cheap, a profit
maker, and fatten the hogs in record time for market. But the farmers
noticed the hogs were dying off in great numbers so it was banned. So
what did they do with all that surplus margarine? Some entrepreneur
noticed with a little coloring and flavoring added, it could pass for
butter substitute. How it was advertised as heather than butter I never
know but I guess in those days we thought cigarettes were cool too.




I would be very interested in knowing the source of this information. If I
can verify it to be factual, I will add it to our database

Thanks!

Lenny


Couldn't offhand find the source Lenny, and I really don't know if is
factual or not as so with so many things written or broadcasted over the
net, radio or TV, but here is a support relationship between trans-fat and
hogs:

"According to Russell Jaffe, M.D., a noted medical researcher, hog farmers
will not feed trans- fats to their animals because the pigs will die if they
eat them. When Dr Jaffe contacted the US Department of Agriculture, he found
that it knew all about this but was not interested in the possible human
effects since this area was not under its jurisdiction. The US Food & Drug
Administration (FDA) hasn't done anything about it, either. The fact that
the food industry has succeeded in keeping a lid on public awareness of
these facts is testimony to the political power it wields in governmental
and scientific circles."

The complete article is on:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/margarine.html

Forgive me, but I couldn't help playing a little word substitution
with the cited text.....

"There are still holdouts within the 'scientific' community,
particularly those employed or funded by the [coal and oil] industry,
who claim there is not yet sufficient proof that [global climate
change] is dangerous, and then cite studies that justify their
position. This is the name of the game in modern-day 'science' where
egos and money are involved.

However, most studies currently appearing in the literature support
the idea that these [greenhouse gas emissions] are harmful. In such
cases of conflict, I always side with Mother Natu she is much wiser
than we will ever be!

Remember that most of this information about [carbon emissions] has
been known for many years, but [coal and oil interests] have succeeded
in keeping the issue out of the public eye - another example of caveat
emptor (let the buyer beware) in the [energy] industry. Now that you
are aware of it, the rest is up to you! Good luck, and good health!"

Cheers,
Paul

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:00:05 -0800, "# Fred #"
wrote:

Couldn't offhand find the source Lenny, and I really don't know if is
factual or not as so with so many things written or broadcasted over the
net, radio or TV, but here is a support relationship between trans-fat and
hogs:

"According to Russell Jaffe, M.D., a noted medical researcher, hog farmers
will not feed trans- fats to their animals because the pigs will die if they
eat them. When Dr Jaffe contacted the US Department of Agriculture, he found
that it knew all about this but was not interested in the possible human
effects since this area was not under its jurisdiction. The US Food & Drug
Administration (FDA) hasn't done anything about it, either. The fact that
the food industry has succeeded in keeping a lid on public awareness of
these facts is testimony to the political power it wields in governmental
and scientific circles."

The complete article is on:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/margarine.html