First, lead is not a good thing to snort. No way, no how.

Remember the Alar scare? PCBs? Coffee?

Some things WILL kill you, lead is one. But scientists have made a few
errors that will take years to untangle. I'm leery of the current rage,
where actual scientific inquiry is damned. I thought creationists were
unable to accept divergent views that scientific inquiry suggests, yet
global warming is unquestionable.

Al Gore saying that the scientists that do not agree with his pet theory
are "deniers", like the holocaust deniers. Bad science does not mean I
or anyone else must suspend our disbelief.

PS. Rachel Carlson's "Silent Spring" was bogus.

wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:03 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
FYI....heavy metal contamination is forever.

TMT

Lead linked to aging in older brains By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science
Writer

Could it be that the "natural" mental decline that afflicts many older
people is related to how much lead they absorbed decades before?

That's the provocative idea emerging from some recent studies, part of
a broader area of new research that suggests some pollutants can cause
harm that shows up only years after someone is exposed.

The new work suggests long-ago lead exposure can make an aging
person's brain work as if it's five years older than it really is. If
that's verified by more research, it means that sharp cuts in
environmental lead levels more than 20 years ago didn't stop its
widespread effects.

"We're trying to offer a caution that a portion of what has been
called normal aging might in fact be due to ubiquitous environmental
exposures like lead," says Dr. Brian Schwartz of Johns Hopkins
University.

"The fact that it's happening with lead is the first proof of
principle that it's possible," said Schwartz, a leader in the study of
lead's delayed effects. Other pollutants like mercury and pesticides
may do the same thing, he said.

In fact, some recent research does suggest that being exposed to
pesticides raises the risk of getting Parkinson's disease a decade or
more later. Experts say such studies in mercury are lacking.

The notion of long-delayed effects is familiar; tobacco and asbestos,
for example, can lead to cancer. But in recent years, scientists are
coming to appreciate that exposure to other pollutants in early life
also may promote disease much later on.

"It's an emerging area" for research, said Dr. Philip Landrigan of the
Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. It certainly makes sense
that if a substance destroys brain cells in early life, the brain may
cope by drawing on its reserve capacity until it loses still more
cells with aging, he said. Only then would symptoms like forgetfulness
or tremors appear.

Linda Birnbaum, director of experimental toxicology at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, said infant mice exposed to chemicals
like PCBs show only very subtle effects in young adulthood. But more
dramatic harm in areas like movement and learning appears when they
reach old age.

Animal studies also show clear evidence that being exposed to harmful
substances in the womb can harm health later on, she said. For
example, rodents that encounter PCBs or dioxins before birth are more
susceptible to cancer once they grow up.

Studying delayed effects in people is difficult because they generally
must be followed for a long time. Research with lead is easier because
scientists can measure the amount that has accumulated in the shinbone
over decades and get a read on how much lead a person has been exposed
to in the past.

Lead in the blood, by contrast, reflects recent exposure. Virtually
all Americans have lead in their blood, but the amounts are far lower
today than in the past.

The big reason for the drop: the phasing out of lead in gasoline from
1976 to 1991. Because of that and accompanying measures, the average
lead level in the blood of American adults fell 30 percent by 1980 and
about 80 percent by 1990.

That's a major success story for environmentalists. But work by
Schwartz and Dr. Howard Hu of the University of Michigan suggests that
the long-term effects of the high-lead era are still being felt.

In 2006, Schwartz and his colleagues published a study of about 1,000
Baltimore residents. They were ages 50 to 70, old enough to have
absorbed plenty of lead before it disappeared from gasoline. They
probably got their peak doses in the 1960s and 1970s, Schwartz said,
mostly by inhaling air pollution from vehicle exhaust and from other
sources in the environment.

The researchers estimated each person's lifetime dose by scanning
their shinbones for lead. Then they gave each one a battery of mental
ability tests.

In brief, the scientists found that the higher the lifetime lead dose,
the poorer the performance across a wide variety of mental functions,
like verbal and visual memory and language ability. From low to high
dose, the difference in mental functioning was about the equivalent of
aging by two to six years.

"We think that's a large effect," Schwartz said.

Hu and his colleagues took a slightly different approach in a 2004
study of 466 men with an average age of 67. Those men took a mental-
ability test twice, about four years apart on average. Those with the
highest bone lead levels showed more decline between exams than those
with smaller levels, with the effect of the lead equal to about five
years of aging.

Nobody is claiming that lead is the sole cause of age-related mental
decline, but it appears to be one of several factors involved, Hu
stressed.

If so, it would join such possible influences as high blood pressure,
diabetes, stroke, emotional stress and maybe education level, said
Bradley Wise of the National Institute on Aging. Nobody knows exactly
what causes mental decline with age, he said.

Although the studies by Hu and Schwartz suggest lead is involved, Wise
and others say they don't prove the link.

"I think many things impact how we age, but I think right now it's
maybe premature to be giving lead a huge role in our age-related
cognitive decline," said Dr. Margit L. Bleecker, director of the
Center for Occupational and Environmental Neurology in Baltimore.
Still, she called the lead hypothesis "a very interesting idea"
deserving more study.

Others were more impressed.

"The new evidence from these studies should concern people" said
epidemiologist Andrew Rowland of the University of New Mexico. "These
two research groups are finding adverse effects on the aging brain at
low levels of lead exposure. More work needs to be done, but these
studies are raising important questions."

In any case, scientists still face some basic mysteries about the
delayed effects of lead. For example, when does it actually harm the
brain? Does a high level in the shinbone merely identify those who
were the most harmed by chronic exposure decades ago? Or does lead in
the bone continue to do its dirty work over a lifetime, leaching into
the bloodstream and continuously hammering the brain?

"I think that both things are happening," Schwartz said, though he
suspects most of the damage occurred in the past, during years of
higher exposure. Hu's suspicions are similar.

Just how lead impairs brainpower is still a mystery. And so is the
question of whether anything can be done to help people who have
absorbed a lot of lead over a lifetime.

A medical procedure called chelation can remove lead from the body,
but it wouldn't help in this case, said experts, who had few
suggestions.

For younger people, prevention is a clearer strategy, Hu said. He
called for tougher federal standards on lead exposure in the
workplace.

And plenty of low-income neighborhoods could use a strong effort to
remove lead from old houses, many of which still have lead paint,
Rowland said. "It's there on the walls, it's on the radiators, it's
underneath the top layers of paint. In places where the paint is
crumbling, there's still exposure going on," he said.

Yet another question: Who really has to worry about long-ago lead
affecting their brainpower? What about people born after the high lead
levels of the 1970s were history?

Schwartz noted that most Americans younger than 30 have gotten much
less lead from the environment than the men in his study did. And Hu
hopes that the lead effect will peter out in the future.

However, Hu points out that there's still lead in the environment, and
exposure remains especially high in many developing countries. And
citing evidence that lead can cross the placenta, he says women who
grew up in the 1970s might dose their fetuses with the metal.

"Kids who grew up in the 21st century have a lot less to worry about"
than their elders, Hu said. But "it's hard for me to be totally
optimistic the current generation is completely scot-free."

___

On the Net:

Lead information:http://www.epa.gov/lead/index.html

Well, it was certainly true of my late father-in-law. He worked in a
lead smelter in Idaho for a while, perhaps a year or more, as a young
man. Then went to logging during WWII, then farming with tractors.
First with leaded gasoline and finally Diesel. When I first met him,
about 1959, he would show off his ability to keep track of his daily
farm records in his brain, then write them down after work.

About 15 years before he passed away at age 90, he began to go down
mentally. finally had to be in a foster care home. His older and
younger brothers did not work in the lead smelter and did not suffer
the mental decline. They died from other problems.

I wonder, sometimes, about my employees and their use of leaded solder
for up to 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. Yes, we are moving to lead
free older, but only as customers specify it.

Paul

"Louis Ohland" wrote: (clip) Al Gore saying that the scientists that do not
agree with his pet theory
are "deniers", like the holocaust deniers. Bad science does not mean I or
anyone else must suspend our disbelief. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What about good science? Would you suspoend your disbelief if Al Gore's
"pet theory" were supported by good science? Well, it is. Open your eyes.
It is not just Al Gores pet theory--it's supported by virtually all of the
scientific community.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:34:21 GMT, Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Louis Ohland" wrote: (clip) Al Gore saying that the scientists that do not
agree with his pet theory
are "deniers", like the holocaust deniers. Bad science does not mean I or
anyone else must suspend our disbelief. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What about good science? Would you suspoend your disbelief if Al Gore's
"pet theory" were supported by good science? Well, it is. Open your eyes.
It is not just Al Gores pet theory--it's supported by virtually all of the
scientific community.

It's funny, when people express interest in the actual science behind
global warming, how often the response is vague just like yours. I've
asked for credible cites before and been told "Look anywhere, it's all
around you". I've been pointed to specific ones and they were so
full-on rant-mode biased sites I couldn't possibly take them seriously.

When one's cause can only be represented by raving lunatics (let's call
it the Ron Paul rule), that cause, valid or not, is perceived as being
less credible than it might be.

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (4/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&NR=1

The Weather Channel can't accurately forecast more than a week out. How
is it that people accept a simulation of global size, yet won't bet
their life on the forecast for next week?

Look for the famous "hockey stick". Draw your line, then plot the points.

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Louis Ohland" wrote: (clip) Al Gore saying that the scientists that do not
agree with his pet theory
are "deniers", like the holocaust deniers. Bad science does not mean I or
anyone else must suspend our disbelief. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What about good science? Would you suspoend your disbelief if Al Gore's
"pet theory" were supported by good science? Well, it is. Open your eyes.
It is not just Al Gores pet theory--it's supported by virtually all of the
scientific community.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:34:21 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Leo
Lichtman" quickly quoth:

"Louis Ohland" wrote: (clip) Al Gore saying that the scientists that do not
agree with his pet theory
are "deniers", like the holocaust deniers. Bad science does not mean I or
anyone else must suspend our disbelief. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What about good science? Would you suspoend your disbelief if Al Gore's
"pet theory" were supported by good science? Well, it is. Open your eyes.
It is not just Al Gores pet theory--it's supported by virtually all of the
scientific community.

I'm currently reading Horner's _A Politically Incorrect Guide to
Global Warming and Environmentalism_. I strongly suggest that you
purchase a copy and research his fidings so you can positively refute
Al Gore's statements, just as many other scientists (the other
"consensus") have. Horner devotes an entire chapter to Gore.

If that doesn't suit you, try any of the dozens of books by Bjorn
Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Peter Huber, or dozens of
other deniers of your alarmism.

Or read anything from the bibliography of Crichton's _State of Fear_.

I double-dog-dare ya, Leo, to prove (or disprove) it to yourself!

--
Bite off more than you can chew, then chew it.
Plan more than you can do, then do it.
-- Anonymous

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:34:21 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:

"Louis Ohland" wrote: (clip) Al Gore saying that the scientists that do not
agree with his pet theory
are "deniers", like the holocaust deniers. Bad science does not mean I or
anyone else must suspend our disbelief. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What about good science? Would you suspoend your disbelief if Al Gore's
"pet theory" were supported by good science? Well, it is. Open your eyes.
It is not just Al Gores pet theory--it's supported by virtually all of the
scientific community.

Not true in the least.

Google search terms "nasa global warming sun"

Might want to do some research before betting the bank on Gorbal
Waming.

Gunner

On 27 Jan 2008 22:47:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


It's funny, when people express interest in the actual science behind
global warming, how often the response is vague just like yours. I've
asked for credible cites before and been told "Look anywhere, it's all
around you". I've been pointed to specific ones and they were so
full-on rant-mode biased sites I couldn't possibly take them seriously.

When one's cause can only be represented by raving lunatics (let's call
it the Ron Paul rule), that cause, valid or not, is perceived as being
less credible than it might be.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change


Prove that global warming isn't happening and you can have your very own Nobel
Prize.

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:46:27 -0600, Louis Ohland
wrote:



The new work suggests long-ago lead exposure can make an aging
person's brain work as if it's five years older than it really is. If
that's verified by more research, it means that sharp cuts in

so giving lead to young people makes them have a higher IQ?????

cant be a bad thing!

maybe that's what makes pilots more intelligent for longer. the faint
aroma of avgas. :-)

IQ, intelligence quotient, is the ratio between a persons mental age
and their physical age.
what you're saying is that lead gives you a higher IQ.

Stealth (baloney!) Pilot

Mark Rand wrote:

On 27 Jan 2008 22:47:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

It's funny, when people express interest in the actual science behind
global warming, how often the response is vague just like yours. I've
asked for credible cites before and been told "Look anywhere, it's all
around you". I've been pointed to specific ones and they were so
full-on rant-mode biased sites I couldn't possibly take them seriously.

When one's cause can only be represented by raving lunatics (let's call
it the Ron Paul rule), that cause, valid or not, is perceived as being
less credible than it might be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Prove that global warming isn't happening and you can have your very own Nobel
Prize.

Mark Rand
RTFM
It may be that "global warming" does exist BUT it is a LONG
way from being shown that it is the result of humans.
I can't believe that so many people either don't know or
ignore all the other warming and cooling cycles that the
earth has gone through LONG before there were humans around.
Or are all these folks the ones that believe the earth is only
a few thousand years old? :-)
...lew...

Mark Rand wrote:

Prove that global warming isn't happening and you can have your very own Nobel
Prize.

Prove to me that global warming is bad for a northern Michigan resident and
I'll buy you a beer.

Wes

Mark Rand wrote:
On 27 Jan 2008 22:47:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


It's funny, when people express interest in the actual science behind
global warming, how often the response is vague just like yours. I've
asked for credible cites before and been told "Look anywhere, it's all
around you". I've been pointed to specific ones and they were so
full-on rant-mode biased sites I couldn't possibly take them seriously.

When one's cause can only be represented by raving lunatics (let's call
it the Ron Paul rule), that cause, valid or not, is perceived as being
less credible than it might be.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change


Prove that global warming isn't happening and you can have your very own Nobel
Prize.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Let's see, there was the coming ice age, that was in the 70s and then
there was the global warming scare in the 20s, though it wasn't called
global warming, not sure what term was used. And then in the late 1800s
there was again a global cooling. This cycle seems to come around from
time to time. I wasn't here for the others, but I remember what a hoopla
was made of the "coming ice age" and all the "scientific" gabbering that
went on about it in the 70s.

Sort of makes a fellow wonder about the reliability of the "scientific
community" doesn't it?

George

Mark Rand wrote in article
...
On 27 Jan 2008 22:47:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


It's funny, when people express interest in the actual science behind
global warming, how often the response is vague just like yours. I've
asked for credible cites before and been told "Look anywhere, it's all
around you". I've been pointed to specific ones and they were so
full-on rant-mode biased sites I couldn't possibly take them seriously.

When one's cause can only be represented by raving lunatics (let's call
it the Ron Paul rule), that cause, valid or not, is perceived as being
less credible than it might be.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change


Prove that global warming isn't happening and you can have your very own
Nobel
Prize.



I'm still waiting for some "scientist" to explain to me exactly where the
global warming that brought us out of the Ice Age stopped, and the alleged
human-caused global warming suddenly took over.

Is there global warming? Of course there is. There has been for centuries,
or the Ice Age would still be upon us.

Is it caused by humans? No! The dinosaurs started it all when they fell in
love with SUVs.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:03:31 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm, Mark
Rand quickly quoth:

On 27 Jan 2008 22:47:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


It's funny, when people express interest in the actual science behind
global warming, how often the response is vague just like yours. I've
asked for credible cites before and been told "Look anywhere, it's all
around you". I've been pointed to specific ones and they were so
full-on rant-mode biased sites I couldn't possibly take them seriously.

When one's cause can only be represented by raving lunatics (let's call
it the Ron Paul rule), that cause, valid or not, is perceived as being
less credible than it might be.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change


Prove that global warming isn't happening and you can have your very own Nobel
Prize.

Stretch evidence to the fact that Global Warming(kumbaya) is all
manmade and is going to kill us and you can have your own Nobel Peace
Prize, too. Note that even in your country, they can't show Gore's
film in schools without a disclaimer of the 9 major errors (aka LIES)
in it. I wonder what he thinks of the volcano under Antarctica...
And how do you explain that the ice on the other 90% of Antarctica
(and Greenland) is thickening during all this nasty and blatant
"warming", hmm?

Whatever happened to scientists being their own skeptics? sigh
Global Warming(kumbaya) climate models have holes miles wide in them.
Why are the alarmists continuing to reduce their scare figures?
Because newer, better data still doesn't support their claims.

C'mon, guys. I dare you to do the research and prove the deniers
wrong!


--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:30:26 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, Lew
Hartswick quickly quoth:

Mark Rand wrote:

On 27 Jan 2008 22:47:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

It's funny, when people express interest in the actual science behind
global warming, how often the response is vague just like yours. I've
asked for credible cites before and been told "Look anywhere, it's all
around you". I've been pointed to specific ones and they were so
full-on rant-mode biased sites I couldn't possibly take them seriously.

When one's cause can only be represented by raving lunatics (let's call
it the Ron Paul rule), that cause, valid or not, is perceived as being
less credible than it might be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Prove that global warming isn't happening and you can have your very own Nobel
Prize.

Mark Rand
RTFM
It may be that "global warming" does exist BUT it is a LONG
way from being shown that it is the result of humans.
I can't believe that so many people either don't know or
ignore all the other warming and cooling cycles that the
earth has gone through LONG before there were humans around.
Or are all these folks the ones that believe the earth is only
a few thousand years old? :-)
...lew...

I forgot to add another book. I haven't read it yet, but Dennis Avery
and Fred Singer wrote _Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years_
http://tinyurl.com/yr9adn
Book Description
Supported by in-depth scientific evidence, Singer and Avery present
the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising
mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global
Warming explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and
why we can't stop it anyway.

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:45:53 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:




Whatever happened to scientists being their own skeptics? sigh

They are, that's the whole point. If you know more than those that advised the
IPCC, please publish the details.

Global Warming(kumbaya) climate models have holes miles wide in them.
Why are the alarmists continuing to reduce their scare figures?
Because newer, better data still doesn't support their claims.

the only data I've seen from you is old data and urban myth.



C'mon, guys. I dare you to do the research and prove the deniers
wrong!



You're denying the accepted scientific position, justify your denial...


The good thin abour the American political system is that there is a strictly
limited amount of time that a god-bothering ****wit can stay in power.

:-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

Sir, allow the powers of technology to address your concerns:

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (4/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&NR=1

If you haven't the time to watch it, let me give you the short version.
Global warming is a scam.


Mark Rand wrote:
You're denying the accepted scientific position, justify your denial...

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:07:48 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm, Mark
Rand quickly quoth:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:45:53 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Whatever happened to scientists being their own skeptics? sigh

They are, that's the whole point. If you know more than those that advised the
IPCC, please publish the details.

Even some of the scientists in on the IPCC don't fully believe the
published paper. IIRC, it was revised and released without their
knowledge. It's almost entirely a political paper with a few facts
thrown in. IIRC, there were major adjustments between the first and
second publications.


Global Warming(kumbaya) climate models have holes miles wide in them.
Why are the alarmists continuing to reduce their scare figures?
Because newer, better data still doesn't support their claims.

the only data I've seen from you is old data and urban myth.

State which is old and which is myth and provide new, valid data. I'll
research it. Most fearful folks won't go to any length at all to
provide that. Prove you're not one of them, Mark.


C'mon, guys. I dare you to do the research and prove the deniers
wrong!


You're denying the accepted scientific position, justify your denial...

I have been. See any of a dozen authors/books I've been trying to get
you to read for the past several years. (You can lead a horse to
water...)


The good thin abour the American political system is that there is a strictly
limited amount of time that a god-bothering ****wit can stay in power.

:-)

And don't we all wish it were a SHORTER time? Are you satisfied with
your own political system Over There? I thought not.

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:35:02 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Louis Ohland quickly quoth:

Sir, allow the powers of technology to address your concerns:

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (4/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&NR=1

If you haven't the time to watch it, let me give you the short version.
Global warming is a scam.


Mark Rand wrote:
You're denying the accepted scientific position, justify your denial...

These are excellent, Lou. Mark, please watch these and reply.

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

With who as the judge ?
We know the Nobel prizes to to the far left for most this and that.
IIRC 13 points were proven to be false already. It is a farce.

Currently in the mountains in France, Switzerland, Germany, Greenland
and the like - wonder about Africa... - are finding settlements and mines
that were covered deep under ice and snow.

This global thaw has been coming and going for thousands of years.
Greenland was Green during the age of the Vikings. Now it is starting
to melt back to land that can be green once again. WW II planes were
deep into the ice. The snow kept stacking up on top.

There is change, some for the good and some for the bad. But the Sun
is heating up all of the planets at an alarming rate.

We hope it isn't thinking on expanding - as it is slated to do in a Million
years. If the numbers were off in the estimates we might crisp out
before to long.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Mark Rand wrote:
On 27 Jan 2008 22:47:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


It's funny, when people express interest in the actual science behind
global warming, how often the response is vague just like yours. I've
asked for credible cites before and been told "Look anywhere, it's all
around you". I've been pointed to specific ones and they were so
full-on rant-mode biased sites I couldn't possibly take them seriously.

When one's cause can only be represented by raving lunatics (let's call
it the Ron Paul rule), that cause, valid or not, is perceived as being
less credible than it might be.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change


Prove that global warming isn't happening and you can have your very own Nobel
Prize.

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:35:02 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Louis Ohland quickly quoth:

Sir, allow the powers of technology to address your concerns:

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (4/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&NR=1

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&NR=1

I love John Christy's ending statement:
"When one talks about climate models and observations, I'm reminded of
a climate scientist one time who said 'My model is right. It's the
real world which is wrong.' And I think that's what we've seen in
many cases. And, so, using observations is not as exotic, it is not
as dramatic in many cases, and, uh, occupies sort of a lower level in
the climate hierarchy of who gets attention. Because climate modeling
enterprizes are very expensive, so they have to have these
constituencies built up that seek to maintain their, um, work.
Observationalists generally do not have that, uh, same attention, and
so developing the observational data sets is sort of the weak sister
in the climate community, yet climate observations are supposed to
represent the truth, not the theory, against which our theory is to be
checked. I believe in observations and that this is where our basis
for climate change should be understood, and the perspective from
which we should see the future. If you look at the past, I don't think
the perspective of the future is all that bad." I think he meant
"projection (or prospects) for the future" in that last sentence.


If you haven't the time to watch it, let me give you the short version.
Global warming is a scam.

g


Mark Rand wrote:
You're denying the accepted scientific position, justify your denial...

So, Mark, have you found any cites disputing my "myths and legends"
yet?

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

Larry Jaques wrote in article
...
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:07:48 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm, Mark
Rand quickly quoth:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:45:53 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Whatever happened to scientists being their own skeptics? sigh

They are, that's the whole point. If you know more than those that
advised the
IPCC, please publish the details.

Even some of the scientists in on the IPCC don't fully believe the
published paper. IIRC, it was revised and released without their
knowledge. It's almost entirely a political paper with a few facts
thrown in. IIRC, there were major adjustments between the first and
second publications.


Global Warming(kumbaya) climate models have holes miles wide in them.
Why are the alarmists continuing to reduce their scare figures?
Because newer, better data still doesn't support their claims.

the only data I've seen from you is old data and urban myth.

State which is old and which is myth and provide new, valid data. I'll
research it. Most fearful folks won't go to any length at all to
provide that. Prove you're not one of them, Mark.



www.surfacestations.org