Ed Huntress wrote:

Those are pretty impressive sites, Wayne. Hats off to you for making such an
effort -- and it's clear that a serious effort is required, even with the
aid of that kind of information.

I'll try to absorb some of it but my feeling is that I won't be able to
devote the time required. I have some other research projects going on that
are consuming me. Fortunately for the world, it doesn't matter much what I
think about it. g

Anyone who wants to get serious about understanding it, though, ought to
take a look at those sites you point to.

--
Ed Huntress



I'd like to add one thing to the debate...

Why are fools so sure when wise men doubt?

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 22:50:25 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 4 May 2008 10:15:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

I don't think Al Gore knows enough about climate change to fill a
shoebox.
He gets his information from climate scientists, most of whom seem to
favor
his conclusions. But I have no interest in Gore's opinions on the matter
for
the same reason I have no interest in Gunner's opinions about the life
expectancy of Mexicans.

Gore's researcher cherrypicked the data, a 10% sample from what was
out there, and every one supposedly agreed with the other. That ain't
good science, IMNSHO, because so many other of those reports disagree
with those same findings six ways from Sunday.

How do you know this? Did you read everything that's "out there"? Do you
know what everything that's "out there" says, or are you taking someone's
word for it? And, if so, whose word are you taking?

No, I haven't/Someone else's word, primarily/Some of the authors.

Did you watch that set of vids on YouTube which someone posted? It
was over an hour's worth. I'll see if I can scrounge up the URLs.
It sums up a lot of the problems quite handily. From there you do your
research and you may end up like me: Angry about the lies.


This is the root of our problem, IMO. There is too much to check. And
everyone who's packaging it for us is suspect. The ones I'm most inclined
to
believe are the real scientists. It's true, I have a pro-science bias.
It's
based on a lifetime of watching them come out right far more often than
their detractors. And the real climate scientists, at least 98% of them,
appear to agree on the basic issues about global warming. So I'll proceed
as
if they're correct.

That's part of the lie, Ed. There IS no real concensus. Keep digging.
You'll hit the old "AHA!" moment soon.

No, I disagree. The consensus that there is human-caused global warming
going on (allowing for shorter-term swings due to things like La Nina) seems
to be nearly universal among the real climate scientists. What's not uniform
is their estimates of the consequences. And that could be described as a
sliding scale, with low likelihoods at the two ends -- zero consequence, and
unmitigated disaster -- and a wide range of possibilities in between.

This is seen by the skeptics as a value-at-risk (VaR) problem, to put it in
financial terms, and they're looking only at likelihoods that a certain risk
won't be exceeded. The other side is focused on the disasters possible with
the outlying possibilities of risk. But the basic understanding of what is
going on is only disputed by a miniscule percentage of real climate
scientists.



I don't know how much you know about modeling, so at the risk of
belittling
your knowledge of it, and at the greater risk of abusing it by
oversimplification, I'll try to put what I know about it in a nutshell:

1) There is only one sure way to test a model: Use it to make predictions,
and see if those predictions come true. Unfortunately, many of the
predictions made by climate models won't be tested for years.

And the century models take longer still.


2) There is an infinite number of models that "predict" the past. That is,
if you're working with historical data, you can produce any number of
models
that fit that data.

3) Unfortunately, virtually all models are based on the past. Experience
is
the raw material from which models are built. You can't avoid that, except
by hypothesizing events out of your imagination. And such models are
rarely
good for anything. So all modeling starts with this Achilles' Heel: mining
the past to predict the future is a very problematic and evolutionary
business. But that's what modelers are doomed to do.

AFAIK, they're up to the tens of thousands of variable data inputs for
the models now. How'd you like to code THAT little monster?


4) There is an arcane body of theory about "testing" models without
waiting
for their predicted events. It's as controversial as global warming
itself.
It is not for me: I've looked into it and it's over my head. In this case
I
*do* happen to know one person who knows what he's talking about regarding
modeling, testing them, and so on. But he doesn't talk to us mortals about
it. We shoot pool and drink beer together, and I try to improve his son's
baseball pitching mechanics, but that's the extent of our conversation.
d8-)

The problem I continue to see is that all of the past-based modeling
is unable to foretell the future with any accuracy. And once they fix
it to be somewhat accurate futurewise, it no longer tracks the past
well. Like I said, from everything I've read about them, they're just
not ready for prime time, yet TRILLIONS of dollars in funding (and bad
planning) is being tossed around from their predictions. It's all
wasted when far more good could come out of the use of those dollars.
Those are life and death funds.

When you toss out the figure of trillions, my red flags go up. g I don't
think there is anything like trillions of dollars involved in funding
anything.



While we're on a roll, I'll try to wrap up the rest of what I care to say
about this subject. I don't care about it nearly as much as you appear to
do. Having more physics and economics in my background than earth science,
climate science, or life science, I tend to see it through a physical and
economics microscope. For what little it may be worth, this is what I see:

1) There isn't a damned thing we're going to be able to do about it. Any

True.


fierce effort we may put into it, any attempt to legislate it or to
persuade
the public with guilt trips, is bound to fail. Because even a large
reduction in our carbon output is going to be overwhelmed by the increased
fossil fuel consumption by China, India, and the emerging economies of the
world. And when we see them doing it, we won't allow our economy to suffer
by trying to reverse what they're doing. The same applies to Europe.
They'll
abandon the whole thing if it hurts them enough in their pocketbooks.

Let's hope so.


2) The way we're going about implementing new energy technologies will
probably make things worse. The second tier is not wind or solar, biofuels
or nuclear power; it's coal gasification and liquifaction, tar sands, and
shale oil. When oil gets tight, that's what we'll revert to. So will
China.
And probably Europe -- at least, Germany and the UK, who both have a lot
of
coal. By doing so we will multiply our carbon output by a factor of two to
four per unit of energy. And it's going to happen. There is no way around
it, IMO.

If ever we needed fusion, it's now! I'm sure wind and solar will
continue to gain ground but won't make much of a dent until we find
super-efficient nanolights and nanoengines to reduce the power
requirements.


3) Even if we keep discovering more oil, the world's carbon output will
continue to increase because of accelerating demand and consumption.

'Ayup. Asia ain't even begun yet.


4) The only thing that will change this is some breakthroughs in
technology:
one of the two new, GM-funded biomass liquifaction processes will work, or
Honda's thin-film photovoltaic technologies will be made vastly cheaper to
run, or someone will come up with a revolutionary new battery or fuel cell
for cars. None of these look particularly likely, if not alone, then in
combination with the other things that would be required to make them
significant.

Since PV has been gaining efficiency by the bucketloads every few
years, I'll bet it continues on until it's ubiquitous.

The issues are lifetime cost and embedded energy. After 40 years of
development, they still suck. And if they become more widespread in use,
there will be hell to pay in terms of nightime storage and buffering. You
can't start steam plants on a dime.



5) The real climate scientists are probably right, based upon the general
accuracy and integrity of scientists in the western world throughout
modern
history. If they're 'way wrong, it will be an anomaly and a long shot. I
don't play long shots. I put $2 on the favorite to win. The real
scientists
are the favorites.

As many of the skeptics have said, man continues to find clever ways
around his predicaments. Better fertilizers, mechanization, and land
management blew the threat of overpopulation away, etc.

So now the cost of (petroleum-based) fertilizers is going through the roof,
it's costing a bundle to fuel the mechanization, and we're taking land out
of soil reserves to grow soil-stripping crops for biofuel -- at slightly
more than zero net energy gain.

Ain't progress wonderful? g



5) I am an optimist, not a pessimist, and these are my most optimistic
predictions.

I'm much more optimistic now than I used to be, but I need to nurture
that curmudgeon, too, so...


So I don't find this subject to be one that I'm going to spend a lot of
time
investigating. It's interesting, it's vastly consequential, but I think
that
getting excited about it one way or the other is misplaced energy.

I'm sure you're right, but someone's gotta do it.


Enjoy your pet avocation, however. I'd never discourage anyone from
pursuing
an engaging hobby. d8-)

Danke.

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

On Mon, 5 May 2008 00:59:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
Do you see your own severe biases, Ed? You read three paragraphs
about a guy and then come back with "...who has apparently made his
fame..."

Well, that's all you gave me to work with, and that's what it said. I read

I got to looking at that accusation and found 3 fingers pointing back
at me. Sorry about that, as I'm guilty of the same jumping. blush


the NYT piece that the Wikipedia item points to, in which he's quoted, and
the abstract of the talk he gave on the subject to the Geological Society of
America. He uses geological data to show that other warming cycles have
occurred without the implication of CO2, and concludes from them that CO2
cannot explain those cycles. But the abstract does not imply that he has any
information from which to draw conclusions about the climatic effects of
large increases in CO2. This is a very curious kind of skepticism about the
effects of CO2, IMO.

Current data shows that warming seems to -precede- CO2 rises, making
most talk about CO2 curious, hmm?


Do you have more paragraphs about him I should read? I think the question is
whether these people really have the credentials to make expert judgments
about the climate science itself, right? I mean, that *was* the issue,
correct?

I think that having informed people, scientists of all shapes and
sizes, questioning the (apparently HIGHLY political) outcome of some
of their peers is to be encouraged. Keeping the leading edge experts
apolitical and on track is A Good Thing(tm), IMHO.


What's you're coming up with is a bunch of those people that we so often
make fun of, who think their expertise in one field qualifies them to
pontificate in others. Easterbrook does *not* conclude in those references
that human-produced CO2 cannot cause warming, only that it hasn't in the
geologic history. He is, after all, a geologist, not a climatologist. So why
is he called a "skeptic," if he makes no attempt to be skeptical about the
climatological claims about what is happening *now*?

He's a geologist with a book on environment-related geography.


It seems that he is not challenging the basic points that Gore made, only
some of the details. I can appreciate that the devil is in the details on
this subject. I just haven't seen anything from him, in my cursory checking,
to indicate he challenges the general picture of human-induced global
warming at this time in history. He points to other climatological cycles
that have caused warming and cooling, but so do the real climatologists.
Their job is to separate the noise from the trend. He just points out the
noise.

Gore went totally overboard in both his claims and the suggestions for
solving what I feel is pretty much a non-issue. Yes, I'd love to see
humans tread a lot more lightly on the Earth, but Gore is pointing us
toward a damnear Neanderthal existence while using $35k in utilities
every year. (OK, so after that was pointed out, he spent a mil on
retrofitting his humongous Tennessee estate with the latest in green
baubles so it's no longer true.)


A Curmudgeon's Convention, huh? g I don't know what's supposed to be
significant about that. Apparently you're impressed by it. Good enough, then
it must be impressive.

Quite!


wrote a very interesting book, _Hard Green_. Read it!

No thanks. I have other things to read. Right now I'm reading _Bad Money:
Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American
Capitalism_, by Kevin Phillips. It's a real mood-lifter. Read it!

To where does it uplift your mood, into the ****ter?


Add to that the fact that the older I get, the less I'm able to be
impressed. I've known a lot of brilliant people who are full of crap.
Nothing impresses me much these days. I've grown unimpressible. g

Watch out for the mammoths, then.
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2008/04/29/


Give me a couple hours or days with 'em and I sure would try.

OK. Let us know how it comes out.

Alas, noone has offered to let me play with their computer modeling
prog yet. Mebbe next year, global flooding notwithstanding.

Ciao!

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It seems to appeal to quite a few of them. It's a pretty lucrative segment
of the book business these days.

I wonder how many actually read the first side?


On the nutcase left or right? I have a feeling that since the global
warming dogma fits in with the enviro nazi agenda, most en's barely read the
first side. Holy Grail, yup, global warming

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The "first side" is the science as it's reported in the professional
journals, as Wayne described. That's the kind of source I use for basic
research on most subjects that involve academic or high-science reporting.


Scientists once stated flatly that a locomotive going 60 mph is impossible
since the air pressure would make it impossible for the passengers to
breath.


Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It seems to appeal to quite a few of them. It's a pretty lucrative segment
of the book business these days.

I wonder how many actually read the first side?


On the nutcase left or right? I have a feeling that since the global
warming dogma fits in with the enviro nazi agenda, most en's barely read
the
first side. Holy Grail, yup, global warming

As Wayne said, the real story is in the professional papers published in the
peer-reviewed journals. Those are the things I used to read in other
fields -- medicine, economics, materials science, etc.

Most of the papers in climatology are much harder to read than papers on
endocrinology, in my experience. I don't know anyone, personally, who could
read many of them and really understand what they're talking about. But the
abstracts and conclusions are within reach of most of us.

I think about this when I see comments here and elsewhere about how certain
the posters are that the scientists are right, wrong, coerced or paid off by
somebody. I doubt if a single one of those posters has ever read the stuff
he's complaining about.

How about it, Wes? Do you know what the "global warming dogma" even *is*? Do
you know what they're really saying? Do you know anyone who does? Or are you
getting it all second- and third-hand from the talking heads and
popularizing book authors, like most people?

It drives me nuts that so many people think they know the *real* story, when
they can't even *read* the real story. The less people know about a subject,
the more likely they are to have an opinion about it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The "first side" is the science as it's reported in the professional
journals, as Wayne described. That's the kind of source I use for basic
research on most subjects that involve academic or high-science reporting.


Scientists once stated flatly that a locomotive going 60 mph is impossible
since the air pressure would make it impossible for the passengers to
breath.

Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel, and
things like that.

--
Ed Huntress

After the last few days - the earth will be cooling.

A large volcano in Chile is dumping a large amount of ash into the air.
Oh - and tons of other bad gases that make greenhouse issues.

The thin layer - to become - of ash will reflect sunlight for some years.

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/


Steve W. wrote:
"NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will
likely result in much colder temperatures, according to Marc Shepherd,
writing in the April 30 American Thinker. He adds that NASA was also
quick to point out that such natural phenomena should not confuse the
issue of manmade greenhouse gas induced global warming which apparently
will be going on behind the scenes while our teeth are chattering from a
decade and a half long cold spell."

So the temperature will be warmer but the entire planet will be colder?

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NAS.../01/92541.html



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Right on Ed - As a former member of the IAP and IEEE many of the papers
are frontier grade. But since I was a pioneer in several areas, I could
read and review them. But if I went afield slightly I was humbled.

I finally left the International Association of Physics as I leaned more
and more away from Electro Magnetic theory and more to system and subsystem
architecture. That is where my patent lies. But as my IC's and PCB's used
GaAs and SiGe, it was my E&M background that pulled the group along kicking
and learning High Tech IC's.

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/


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It seems to appeal to quite a few of them. It's a pretty lucrative segment
of the book business these days.

I wonder how many actually read the first side?

On the nutcase left or right? I have a feeling that since the global
warming dogma fits in with the enviro nazi agenda, most en's barely read
the
first side. Holy Grail, yup, global warming

As Wayne said, the real story is in the professional papers published in the
peer-reviewed journals. Those are the things I used to read in other
fields -- medicine, economics, materials science, etc.

Most of the papers in climatology are much harder to read than papers on
endocrinology, in my experience. I don't know anyone, personally, who could
read many of them and really understand what they're talking about. But the
abstracts and conclusions are within reach of most of us.

I think about this when I see comments here and elsewhere about how certain
the posters are that the scientists are right, wrong, coerced or paid off by
somebody. I doubt if a single one of those posters has ever read the stuff
he's complaining about.

How about it, Wes? Do you know what the "global warming dogma" even *is*? Do
you know what they're really saying? Do you know anyone who does? Or are you
getting it all second- and third-hand from the talking heads and
popularizing book authors, like most people?

It drives me nuts that so many people think they know the *real* story, when
they can't even *read* the real story. The less people know about a subject,
the more likely they are to have an opinion about it.

--
Ed Huntress




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:16:36 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The "first side" is the science as it's reported in the professional
journals, as Wayne described. That's the kind of source I use for basic
research on most subjects that involve academic or high-science reporting.


Scientists once stated flatly that a locomotive going 60 mph is impossible
since the air pressure would make it impossible for the passengers to
breath.

And wouldn't your blood boil at speeds above 24mph? Flat-Earthers were
a fun lot, wot?

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

Ed Huntress wrote:

It drives me nuts that so many people think they know the *real* story, when
they can't even *read* the real story. The less people know about a subject,
the more likely they are to have an opinion about it.

--
Ed Huntress



That was the point of my previous comment, Ed.

After posting that. I thought it may have looked like I was dis-ing you.

Not by a long shot!

Richard

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

It drives me nuts that so many people think they know the *real* story,
when they can't even *read* the real story. The less people know about a
subject, the more likely they are to have an opinion about it.

--
Ed Huntress

That was the point of my previous comment, Ed.

After posting that. I thought it may have looked like I was dis-ing you.

Not by a long shot!

Richard

Oh, no, I didn't take it that way at all, Richard. You asked a good
question. I don't think anyone has the answer to it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Right on Ed - As a former member of the IAP and IEEE many of the papers
are frontier grade. But since I was a pioneer in several areas, I could
read and review them. But if I went afield slightly I was humbled.

It's too bad that there are a lot of specialists who don't let that get in
their way. When lawyers and political scientists pontificate about
climatology and write best selling books about it, we have a problem, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel, and
things like that.


I tend to trust scientists that can set up a experiments to prove their
hypotheses.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Most of the papers in climatology are much harder to read than papers on
endocrinology, in my experience. I don't know anyone, personally, who could
read many of them and really understand what they're talking about. But the
abstracts and conclusions are within reach of most of us.


So then we have to take their word on conclusions on faith?

Wes

Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel, and
things like that.



I tend to trust scientists that can set up a experiments to prove their
hypotheses.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller


No, Wes.

A scientist does NOT set up experiments to "prove" a hypothesis.

The experiment is set up to DIS-prove the hypothesis.

It doesn't matter how many "proofs" you have - all it takes is
one lousy DIS-proof to ruing a perfectly good hypothesis...


Richard

(wondering what the hell happened while I was asleep!)

--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 May 2008 00:59:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
Do you see your own severe biases, Ed? You read three paragraphs
about a guy and then come back with "...who has apparently made his
fame..."

Well, that's all you gave me to work with, and that's what it said. I read

I got to looking at that accusation and found 3 fingers pointing back
at me. Sorry about that, as I'm guilty of the same jumping. blush


the NYT piece that the Wikipedia item points to, in which he's quoted, and
the abstract of the talk he gave on the subject to the Geological Society
of
America. He uses geological data to show that other warming cycles have
occurred without the implication of CO2, and concludes from them that CO2
cannot explain those cycles. But the abstract does not imply that he has
any
information from which to draw conclusions about the climatic effects of
large increases in CO2. This is a very curious kind of skepticism about
the
effects of CO2, IMO.

Current data shows that warming seems to -precede- CO2 rises, making
most talk about CO2 curious, hmm?

Yeah, it's curious. I have no idea what it really means, but it's curious.



Do you have more paragraphs about him I should read? I think the question
is
whether these people really have the credentials to make expert judgments
about the climate science itself, right? I mean, that *was* the issue,
correct?

I think that having informed people, scientists of all shapes and
sizes, questioning the (apparently HIGHLY political) outcome of some
of their peers is to be encouraged. Keeping the leading edge experts
apolitical and on track is A Good Thing(tm), IMHO.

I couldn't agree more, Larry. Open criticism and analysis is an essential
part of the process. And it's true that the serious criticism, the
scientifically meaningful part, goes on in the professional literature where
most of us don't even know it's going on. We need some popularizers and
vulgarizers to make these things known to the public at large. It's our
lives they're talking about, after all.

But popularizing has its limitations, to. There are such strong economic and
political interests involved that it's likely that the popularizers are
going to exploit our lack of deep scientific knowledge. And I think they
have. Most of the skeptics -- though certainly not all -- have an ax to
grind or are on the payroll of somebody who does. When you list the skeptics
you want me to read and I find that many of them are being paid by political
think-tanks, my warning flags go up. And then we see that most of the rest
are not experts in the science of it at all. They're mostly coming in out of
the outfield to write about things of which they have little or no
scientific background.



What's you're coming up with is a bunch of those people that we so often
make fun of, who think their expertise in one field qualifies them to
pontificate in others. Easterbrook does *not* conclude in those references
that human-produced CO2 cannot cause warming, only that it hasn't in the
geologic history. He is, after all, a geologist, not a climatologist. So
why
is he called a "skeptic," if he makes no attempt to be skeptical about the
climatological claims about what is happening *now*?

He's a geologist with a book on environment-related geography.

I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like being a military strategist with a
book on space travel. g

No doubt there is a lot of useful information about historical climates to
be gained from geologists who know about the relationship. But Easterbrook
is facing a current situation with no known precedent. He can tell us what
has happened before but it doesn't tell us what is likely to happen in this
new situation. And that, it appears, is because he isn't educationally
equipped to do so.

At least, that's what I could gather from his quotes in the NYT and from the
abstract of his speech. Maybe the full speech went into a lot more. I'm not
going to look it up right now.



It seems that he is not challenging the basic points that Gore made, only
some of the details. I can appreciate that the devil is in the details on
this subject. I just haven't seen anything from him, in my cursory
checking,
to indicate he challenges the general picture of human-induced global
warming at this time in history. He points to other climatological cycles
that have caused warming and cooling, but so do the real climatologists.
Their job is to separate the noise from the trend. He just points out the
noise.

Gore went totally overboard in both his claims and the suggestions for
solving what I feel is pretty much a non-issue. Yes, I'd love to see
humans tread a lot more lightly on the Earth, but Gore is pointing us
toward a damnear Neanderthal existence while using $35k in utilities
every year. (OK, so after that was pointed out, he spent a mil on
retrofitting his humongous Tennessee estate with the latest in green
baubles so it's no longer true.)

It appears that many of the real scientists agree that Gore went somewhat
overboard in suggesting that the likelihood of the more disastrous possible
effects is higher than it really is. But most say he got the science
essentially right.



A Curmudgeon's Convention, huh? g I don't know what's supposed to be
significant about that. Apparently you're impressed by it. Good enough,
then
it must be impressive.

Quite!


wrote a very interesting book, _Hard Green_. Read it!

No thanks. I have other things to read. Right now I'm reading _Bad Money:
Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American
Capitalism_, by Kevin Phillips. It's a real mood-lifter. Read it!

To where does it uplift your mood, into the ****ter?

Well, you know how many technical books have an accompanying CD bound into
the back cover? This one has a razor blade and a diagram of how to slit your
wrists.



Add to that the fact that the older I get, the less I'm able to be
impressed. I've known a lot of brilliant people who are full of crap.
Nothing impresses me much these days. I've grown unimpressible. g

Watch out for the mammoths, then.
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2008/04/29/

Ha-ha! Watch what you step in...


Give me a couple hours or days with 'em and I sure would try.

OK. Let us know how it comes out.

Alas, noone has offered to let me play with their computer modeling
prog yet. Mebbe next year, global flooding notwithstanding.

Look up "climate model" in Wikipedia. There are a number of them, including
the GFDL model, that you can download and play with.


Ciao!

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel, and
things like that.


I tend to trust scientists that can set up a experiments to prove their
hypotheses.

Wes

Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another. Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.

It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Most of the papers in climatology are much harder to read than papers on
endocrinology, in my experience. I don't know anyone, personally, who
could
read many of them and really understand what they're talking about. But
the
abstracts and conclusions are within reach of most of us.


So then we have to take their word on conclusions on faith?

Nope. But you have no basis on which to disagree with them, either. You
certainly have to reason to attribute their hypotheses to the "enviro nazi
agenda."

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:12:08 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel, and
things like that.


I tend to trust scientists that can set up a experiments to prove their
hypotheses.

Wes

Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another. Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.

It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.

Our skeptics are the ones showing the falsities espoused by the fear
mongers. The IPCC once said we'd have a 7 degree warming this century.
Upon criticism, they have been revising that number downward until it
now reads 1.7 degrees. Skeptics still think it's going to be more like
0.7 degrees C, and Earth is right on track so far.

Fear mongers since 1996 have said there'd be many more and worse
hurricanes. 2005 was the lightest year on recent record. Top
climatologists agree that Katrina wasn't caused by GW(kumbaya).

And on and on. I wish you had more time to read skeptical books and
prove it to yourself, Ed.

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:12:08 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel, and
things like that.


I tend to trust scientists that can set up a experiments to prove their
hypotheses.

Wes

Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're
hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another. Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.

It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.

Our skeptics are the ones showing the falsities espoused by the fear
mongers.

Then how about looking into the scientists who expose the fantasies espoused
by the skeptics? As I said, I spent just a few minutes looking for rebuttals
to _State of Fear_ and had all I could read -- from real scientists who
actually know what they're talking about. Here's a small sampler:

http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environm...?pageID=1670#1

Then there's this:

"Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper Doran et al 2002, wrote in
the New York Times stating that '... our results have been misused as
'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State of
Fear.'"

And this:

"James Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, elected
to the National Academy of Science in 1966, wrote: 'He (Michael Crichton)
doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes
about.'"

And so on, and so on, until you could croak. d8-)

The IPCC once said we'd have a 7 degree warming this century.
Upon criticism, they have been revising that number downward until it
now reads 1.7 degrees. Skeptics still think it's going to be more like
0.7 degrees C, and Earth is right on track so far.

I would believe these claims when I read the entire background. It sounds
like a skeptic spinning the facts, to me.


Fear mongers since 1996 have said there'd be many more and worse
hurricanes. 2005 was the lightest year on recent record. Top
climatologists agree that Katrina wasn't caused by GW(kumbaya).

Which has almost no relevance to the central issues. But why are you
accepting a claim from "top climatologists," in the first place? I thought
they were the ones you didn't trust. Or do you only trust them when they say
something you find agreeable?


And on and on. I wish you had more time to read skeptical books and
prove it to yourself, Ed.

And I wish you had more time to read the original sources of real science
and see for yourself how you're (likely) being spun like a top, Larry.

I can't comment on the science itself -- you probably can't, either -- but I
smell a lot of opportunists, contrarians, pretenders, and think-tank
propagandists at work on the skeptic side. That's not to say this lends
credence to the mainstream science. It's just that old PR writers can smell
a PR job at twenty paces, and these smell pretty bad to me.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:08:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Current data shows that warming seems to -precede- CO2 rises, making
most talk about CO2 curious, hmm?

Yeah, it's curious. I have no idea what it really means, but it's curious.

If nothing else, doesn't it make you wonder about the validity of all
the scare mongers who are using it as a pry bar to get into our and
the govt's wallets?


I think that having informed people, scientists of all shapes and
sizes, questioning the (apparently HIGHLY political) outcome of some
of their peers is to be encouraged. Keeping the leading edge experts
apolitical and on track is A Good Thing(tm), IMHO.

I couldn't agree more, Larry. Open criticism and analysis is an essential
part of the process. And it's true that the serious criticism, the
scientifically meaningful part, goes on in the professional literature where
most of us don't even know it's going on. We need some popularizers and
vulgarizers to make these things known to the public at large. It's our
lives they're talking about, after all.

Our lives and world economies. Huber goes after the cost of things in
comparison to their reward, and how it affects poor countries while
doing absolutely nothing, as Kyoto would.


But popularizing has its limitations, to. There are such strong economic and
political interests involved that it's likely that the popularizers are
going to exploit our lack of deep scientific knowledge. And I think they
have. Most of the skeptics -- though certainly not all -- have an ax to
grind or are on the payroll of somebody who does. When you list the skeptics
you want me to read and I find that many of them are being paid by political
think-tanks, my warning flags go up. And then we see that most of the rest
are not experts in the science of it at all. They're mostly coming in out of
the outfield to write about things of which they have little or no
scientific background.

Do you really feel that being on a gov't (or leftist) payroll makes
the fear mongers apolitical?


What's you're coming up with is a bunch of those people that we so often
make fun of, who think their expertise in one field qualifies them to
pontificate in others. Easterbrook does *not* conclude in those references
that human-produced CO2 cannot cause warming, only that it hasn't in the
geologic history. He is, after all, a geologist, not a climatologist. So
why
is he called a "skeptic," if he makes no attempt to be skeptical about the
climatological claims about what is happening *now*?

He's a geologist with a book on environment-related geography.

I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like being a military strategist with a
book on space travel. g

Hey, ever read any David Weber, David Drake, or John Ringo books? I'd
trust them into space.


No doubt there is a lot of useful information about historical climates to
be gained from geologists who know about the relationship. But Easterbrook
is facing a current situation with no known precedent. He can tell us what
has happened before but it doesn't tell us what is likely to happen in this
new situation. And that, it appears, is because he isn't educationally
equipped to do so.

At least, that's what I could gather from his quotes in the NYT and from the
abstract of his speech. Maybe the full speech went into a lot more. I'm not
going to look it up right now.

When you write a book or an in-depth article, don't you gather as much
info from the most talented people in the area that you can before
publishing it? As a scientist, Easterbrook has surely done that and
has (known how to and) asked the hard questions of the top people in
those fields. What do you want to bet that he got stonewalled by the
folks hiding something, or those uncertain of their answers?


It appears that many of the real scientists agree that Gore went somewhat
overboard in suggesting that the likelihood of the more disastrous possible
effects is higher than it really is. But most say he got the science
essentially right.

Most will agree that he got _some_ small tidbit of the science right.
But I'll bet that, off the record, they'd tell you what they really
thought of his piece, and it couldn't be quoted in polite company.
He has done the world, and scientists in general, a great disservice.


To where does it uplift your mood, into the ****ter?

Well, you know how many technical books have an accompanying CD bound into
the back cover? This one has a razor blade and a diagram of how to slit your
wrists.

Eek! I'll pass on that book, thanks.


Alas, noone has offered to let me play with their computer modeling
prog yet. Mebbe next year, global flooding notwithstanding.

Look up "climate model" in Wikipedia. There are a number of them, including
the GFDL model, that you can download and play with.

If I have time.

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:08:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

Current data shows that warming seems to -precede- CO2 rises, making
most talk about CO2 curious, hmm?

Yeah, it's curious. I have no idea what it really means, but it's curious.

If nothing else, doesn't it make you wonder about the validity of all
the scare mongers who are using it as a pry bar to get into our and
the govt's wallets?

No. Assuming you're correct about the point, the thing I'd like to know is
why. If there is no "why," then the next question might be "who." You seem
to be assuming "who," and then you look for facts to reinforce your
conclusion. Right?



I think that having informed people, scientists of all shapes and
sizes, questioning the (apparently HIGHLY political) outcome of some
of their peers is to be encouraged. Keeping the leading edge experts
apolitical and on track is A Good Thing(tm), IMHO.

I couldn't agree more, Larry. Open criticism and analysis is an essential
part of the process. And it's true that the serious criticism, the
scientifically meaningful part, goes on in the professional literature
where
most of us don't even know it's going on. We need some popularizers and
vulgarizers to make these things known to the public at large. It's our
lives they're talking about, after all.

Our lives and world economies. Huber goes after the cost of things in
comparison to their reward, and how it affects poor countries while
doing absolutely nothing, as Kyoto would.

That's a good point, but I'd look at the science first. First Huber is a
climate scientist; now he's an economist. Maybe tomorrow he'll be an
immunologist. But he's really a mechanical engineer and a lawyer. He is a
man of many hats. I wonder how many actually fit?



But popularizing has its limitations, to. There are such strong economic
and
political interests involved that it's likely that the popularizers are
going to exploit our lack of deep scientific knowledge. And I think they
have. Most of the skeptics -- though certainly not all -- have an ax to
grind or are on the payroll of somebody who does. When you list the
skeptics
you want me to read and I find that many of them are being paid by
political
think-tanks, my warning flags go up. And then we see that most of the rest
are not experts in the science of it at all. They're mostly coming in out
of
the outfield to write about things of which they have little or no
scientific background.

Do you really feel that being on a gov't (or leftist) payroll makes
the fear mongers apolitical?

How many real, professional climatologists are on a leftist payroll? Is this
something you know, or something that your ideology tells you *must* be
true? Or did someone you read claim it's true?

Notice that several of the skeptics you believe in are unquestionably on a
rightist payroll. Two of them are paid staffers of the CEI, fer chrissakes.
And they sure as hell aren't climatologists.



What's you're coming up with is a bunch of those people that we so often
make fun of, who think their expertise in one field qualifies them to
pontificate in others. Easterbrook does *not* conclude in those
references
that human-produced CO2 cannot cause warming, only that it hasn't in the
geologic history. He is, after all, a geologist, not a climatologist. So
why
is he called a "skeptic," if he makes no attempt to be skeptical about
the
climatological claims about what is happening *now*?

He's a geologist with a book on environment-related geography.

I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like being a military strategist with a
book on space travel. g

Hey, ever read any David Weber, David Drake, or John Ringo books? I'd
trust them into space.

They don't interest me.



No doubt there is a lot of useful information about historical climates to
be gained from geologists who know about the relationship. But Easterbrook
is facing a current situation with no known precedent. He can tell us what
has happened before but it doesn't tell us what is likely to happen in
this
new situation. And that, it appears, is because he isn't educationally
equipped to do so.

At least, that's what I could gather from his quotes in the NYT and from
the
abstract of his speech. Maybe the full speech went into a lot more. I'm
not
going to look it up right now.

When you write a book or an in-depth article, don't you gather as much
info from the most talented people in the area that you can before
publishing it? As a scientist, Easterbrook has surely done that and
has (known how to and) asked the hard questions of the top people in
those fields.

How do you know he did this? Do you take it on faith? I don't take anything
on faith.

What do you want to bet that he got stonewalled by the
folks hiding something, or those uncertain of their answers?

Again, is this something you know, or is it some noise going on between your
ears?


It appears that many of the real scientists agree that Gore went somewhat
overboard in suggesting that the likelihood of the more disastrous
possible
effects is higher than it really is. But most say he got the science
essentially right.

Most will agree that he got _some_ small tidbit of the science right.

Not from what I've seen. Do you have some evidence of this?

But I'll bet that, off the record, they'd tell you what they really
thought of his piece, and it couldn't be quoted in polite company.

Again, is this fact, or noise? You know something about how I write. I stick
to facts. I cull out the noise.

He has done the world, and scientists in general, a great disservice.

There are a lot of people who disagree with you sharply about that. And a
lot of those people are real climate scientists who actually know what
they're talking about.



To where does it uplift your mood, into the ****ter?

Well, you know how many technical books have an accompanying CD bound into
the back cover? This one has a razor blade and a diagram of how to slit
your
wrists.

Eek! I'll pass on that book, thanks.


Alas, noone has offered to let me play with their computer modeling
prog yet. Mebbe next year, global flooding notwithstanding.

Look up "climate model" in Wikipedia. There are a number of them,
including
the GFDL model, that you can download and play with.

If I have time.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:34:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:08:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Current data shows that warming seems to -precede- CO2 rises, making
most talk about CO2 curious, hmm?

Yeah, it's curious. I have no idea what it really means, but it's curious.

If nothing else, doesn't it make you wonder about the validity of all
the scare mongers who are using it as a pry bar to get into our and
the govt's wallets?

No. Assuming you're correct about the point, the thing I'd like to know is
why. If there is no "why," then the next question might be "who." You seem
to be assuming "who," and then you look for facts to reinforce your
conclusion. Right?

Once upon a time, a rogue scientist found out that his funding was
going away. He looked around and found that scare tactics work well in
the gov't funding sector.


Our lives and world economies. Huber goes after the cost of things in
comparison to their reward, and how it affects poor countries while
doing absolutely nothing, as Kyoto would.

That's a good point, but I'd look at the science first. First Huber is a
climate scientist; now he's an economist. Maybe tomorrow he'll be an
immunologist. But he's really a mechanical engineer and a lawyer. He is a
man of many hats. I wonder how many actually fit?

You'd best never vote again, Ed. You're not a politician.
You'd best never oil a hinge again, Ed. You're not a contractor.
You'd best never change your oil again, Ed. You're not a mechanic.
You'd best give you your shop, Ed. You're not a real machinist.
You'd best never diet again, Ed. You're not a doctor.
You'd best never buy a car again, Ed. You're not a dealer.
You'd best never shoot again, Ed. You're not a cop or soldier.
Anything else? How many other hats do you wear?


Do you really feel that being on a gov't (or leftist) payroll makes
the fear mongers apolitical?

How many real, professional climatologists are on a leftist payroll? Is this
something you know, or something that your ideology tells you *must* be
true? Or did someone you read claim it's true?

I don't know. And I don't know exactly how much leftist and rightist
payrolls affect the outcome of reports, but I do know that far too
much money is being wasted on projects thought up by the fear mongers
without provable, repeatable, hard-science backgrounds to them.


Notice that several of the skeptics you believe in are unquestionably on a
rightist payroll. Two of them are paid staffers of the CEI, fer chrissakes.
And they sure as hell aren't climatologists.

And how does your ideology view the CEI?


When you write a book or an in-depth article, don't you gather as much
info from the most talented people in the area that you can before
publishing it? As a scientist, Easterbrook has surely done that and
has (known how to and) asked the hard questions of the top people in
those fields.

How do you know he did this? Do you take it on faith? I don't take anything
on faith.

Perhaps I shouldn't either. Nor should the unwashed masses. Hmmm...
So why is there so much GW(kumbaya) scare?


What do you want to bet that he got stonewalled by the
folks hiding something, or those uncertain of their answers?

Again, is this something you know, or is it some noise going on between your
ears?

Ears. Call it a hunch from watching the skeptics being turned down
right and left by Gore and everyone else on the fearmongering side.
What do you suppose they're afraid of?


It appears that many of the real scientists agree that Gore went somewhat
overboard in suggesting that the likelihood of the more disastrous
possible
effects is higher than it really is. But most say he got the science
essentially right.

Most will agree that he got _some_ small tidbit of the science right.

Not from what I've seen. Do you have some evidence of this?

Damn I wish I'd written down all the crap I've heard in vids, in
interviews or read in articles. I'd have a bundle for you. Horner's
book shows a lot of it, but you won't take the time. Your loss.
John Stossel's book _Myths..._ covers a lot, too. They'd point you to
further research and proof.


But I'll bet that, off the record, they'd tell you what they really
thought of his piece, and it couldn't be quoted in polite company.

Again, is this fact, or noise? You know something about how I write. I stick
to facts. I cull out the noise.

Erm, what do you suppose I meant by "I'll bet...", Ed? (/rhetorical
question)


He has done the world, and scientists in general, a great disservice.

There are a lot of people who disagree with you sharply about that. And a
lot of those people are real climate scientists who actually know what
they're talking about.

But I don't, right? So why are you still talking to me about it?
(/rq2)

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:53:36 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:12:08 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel, and
things like that.


I tend to trust scientists that can set up a experiments to prove their
hypotheses.

Wes

Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're
hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another. Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.

It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.

Our skeptics are the ones showing the falsities espoused by the fear
mongers.

Then how about looking into the scientists who expose the fantasies espoused
by the skeptics?

Who are they? All I see and hear are the fear mongers saying "They're
bought off by the oil companies!"


As I said, I spent just a few minutes looking for rebuttals
to _State of Fear_ and had all I could read -- from real scientists who
actually know what they're talking about. Here's a small sampler:

http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environm...?pageID=1670#1

Then there's this:

"Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper Doran et al 2002, wrote in
the New York Times stating that '... our results have been misused as
'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State of
Fear.'"

Rants against a book of _fiction_? Why not spend your time better and
try to prove or disprove the skeptics' ideas?


And this:

"James Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, elected
to the National Academy of Science in 1966, wrote: 'He (Michael Crichton)
doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes
about.'"

And so on, and so on, until you could croak. d8-)

Hansen's one of the (40'?) drowning-in-melted-ice mongers, Ed. Try
listening to im in his interviews and you likely won't embrace the guy
for long.

Let me say this, now: I do not disbelieve all the statements made by
the climatologists and do not believe all the statements made by
skeptics. I really just want all of them to stick to the _facts_.


Fear mongers since 1996 have said there'd be many more and worse
hurricanes. 2005 was the lightest year on recent record. Top
climatologists agree that Katrina wasn't caused by GW(kumbaya).

Which has almost no relevance to the central issues. But why are you
accepting a claim from "top climatologists," in the first place? I thought
they were the ones you didn't trust. Or do you only trust them when they say
something you find agreeable?

Perhaps that's an area where I'm miscommunicating. I suppose I'm
lumping all the idiots (media/pols/those with agendas) in with the
scientists instead of separating them, but they sometimes blend so
well...


And on and on. I wish you had more time to read skeptical books and
prove it to yourself, Ed.

And I wish you had more time to read the original sources of real science
and see for yourself how you're (likely) being spun like a top, Larry.

Ditto the first half of your sentence.


I can't comment on the science itself -- you probably can't, either -- but I
smell a lot of opportunists, contrarians, pretenders, and think-tank
propagandists at work on the skeptic side. That's not to say this lends
credence to the mainstream science. It's just that old PR writers can smell
a PR job at twenty paces, and these smell pretty bad to me.

And what do you call the spinners on the other side of the coin, Ed?

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet

On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:14:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Not from what I've seen. Do you have some evidence of this?

Damn I wish I'd written down all the crap I've heard in vids, in
interviews or read in articles. I'd have a bundle for you. Horner's
book shows a lot of it, but you won't take the time. Your loss.
John Stossel's book _Myths..._ covers a lot, too. They'd point you to
further research and proof.

Sadly, while I take the brunt for being a reactionary, Ed is as
hidebound as anyone here.

His mind is made up, and no amount of facts refuting his world view
will shake it.

Pity

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:34:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:08:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...

Current data shows that warming seems to -precede- CO2 rises, making
most talk about CO2 curious, hmm?

Yeah, it's curious. I have no idea what it really means, but it's
curious.

If nothing else, doesn't it make you wonder about the validity of all
the scare mongers who are using it as a pry bar to get into our and
the govt's wallets?

No. Assuming you're correct about the point, the thing I'd like to know is
why. If there is no "why," then the next question might be "who." You seem
to be assuming "who," and then you look for facts to reinforce your
conclusion. Right?

Once upon a time, a rogue scientist found out that his funding was
going away. He looked around and found that scare tactics work well in
the gov't funding sector.

Should I get tucked in before you read this story, or is that all there is
to it? g

Our lives and world economies. Huber goes after the cost of things in
comparison to their reward, and how it affects poor countries while
doing absolutely nothing, as Kyoto would.

That's a good point, but I'd look at the science first. First Huber is a
climate scientist; now he's an economist. Maybe tomorrow he'll be an
immunologist. But he's really a mechanical engineer and a lawyer. He is a
man of many hats. I wonder how many actually fit?

You'd best never vote again, Ed. You're not a politician.
You'd best never oil a hinge again, Ed. You're not a contractor.
You'd best never change your oil again, Ed. You're not a mechanic.
You'd best give you your shop, Ed. You're not a real machinist.
You'd best never diet again, Ed. You're not a doctor.
You'd best never buy a car again, Ed. You're not a dealer.
You'd best never shoot again, Ed. You're not a cop or soldier.
Anything else? How many other hats do you wear?

But I don't write books claiming that the professional experts are wrong
about those things, Larry. I don't call them charlatans, or contradict their
conclusions. On the contrary: I often *rely* on the experts for my data,
when I can't check it out myself. And I attribute it to them when I do.



Do you really feel that being on a gov't (or leftist) payroll makes
the fear mongers apolitical?

How many real, professional climatologists are on a leftist payroll? Is
this
something you know, or something that your ideology tells you *must* be
true? Or did someone you read claim it's true?

I don't know. And I don't know exactly how much leftist and rightist
payrolls affect the outcome of reports, but I do know that far too
much money is being wasted on projects thought up by the fear mongers
without provable, repeatable, hard-science backgrounds to them.


Notice that several of the skeptics you believe in are unquestionably on a
rightist payroll. Two of them are paid staffers of the CEI, fer
chrissakes.
And they sure as hell aren't climatologists.

And how does your ideology view the CEI?

CEI is a right-wing business-advocacy organization, funded by the usual
suspects: Richard Scaife, ExxonMobil, Amoco, Pfizer, Ford Motor Co., the
tobacco companies, etc. They think that public health and the environment
are best left up to business, that global warming is a hoax and that CO2 is
good for you. You know the type. g



When you write a book or an in-depth article, don't you gather as much
info from the most talented people in the area that you can before
publishing it? As a scientist, Easterbrook has surely done that and
has (known how to and) asked the hard questions of the top people in
those fields.

How do you know he did this? Do you take it on faith? I don't take
anything
on faith.

Perhaps I shouldn't either. Nor should the unwashed masses. Hmmm...
So why is there so much GW(kumbaya) scare?

Like most non-experts, we unwashed masses go with the preponderance of
science as a default position for many things. When the experts tell me I
should take a pill and that it's serious business (like the five I take
now), I read all I can about it, and then I usually take the pill. Three or
four peer-reviewed clinical studies with no contrary data usually is enough
for me. It could all be wrong, but it probably isn't, based on my own
experience with doctors and medicine.

Regarding global warming, we have plenty of sources that show us what the
vast majority of scientific opinion is. For example, the Wikipedia article
on the subject lists 32 scientific organizations that say anthropogenic
global warming is real and none that say it isn't. Two are noncommital:

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

For us unwashed laymen, that's about as good as opinion gets. To fly in the
face of that you have to be really determined to disbelieve. Such disbelief
is usually the result of political or philosophical positions, not of
science knowledge or rational thought.

What do you want to bet that he got stonewalled by the
folks hiding something, or those uncertain of their answers?

Again, is this something you know, or is it some noise going on between
your
ears?

Ears. Call it a hunch from watching the skeptics being turned down
right and left by Gore and everyone else on the fearmongering side.
What do you suppose they're afraid of?

What do you mean "turned down"? Do you mean they're dismissed? Yes, they are
dismissed. That's because they're frustrating as hell, because the real
scientists think these skeptics are doing humankind a disservice, that
they're dangerous to life on the planet. Eventually, even mild-mannered
experts get ****ed off at the pretenders and provocateurs. And that's how I
see the skeptics, too, for the most part: dissembling provocateurs.

But not always. Some are sincere. I follow what I can of their arguments,
when I'm forcing my mind open.

It appears that many of the real scientists agree that Gore went
somewhat
overboard in suggesting that the likelihood of the more disastrous
possible
effects is higher than it really is. But most say he got the science
essentially right.

Most will agree that he got _some_ small tidbit of the science right.

Not from what I've seen. Do you have some evidence of this?

Damn I wish I'd written down all the crap I've heard in vids, in
interviews or read in articles. I'd have a bundle for you. Horner's
book shows a lot of it, but you won't take the time. Your loss.
John Stossel's book _Myths..._ covers a lot, too. They'd point you to
further research and proof.

If you ever come across it, let me know.



But I'll bet that, off the record, they'd tell you what they really
thought of his piece, and it couldn't be quoted in polite company.

Again, is this fact, or noise? You know something about how I write. I
stick
to facts. I cull out the noise.

Erm, what do you suppose I meant by "I'll bet...", Ed? (/rhetorical
question)

That it's a guess. In other words, it's noise. d8-)



He has done the world, and scientists in general, a great disservice.

There are a lot of people who disagree with you sharply about that. And a
lot of those people are real climate scientists who actually know what
they're talking about.

But I don't, right? So why are you still talking to me about it?

Because you're fair and respectful, and you deserve an honest response.
Otherwise, I usually don't waste my time with the skeptics.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:14:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Not from what I've seen. Do you have some evidence of this?

Damn I wish I'd written down all the crap I've heard in vids, in
interviews or read in articles. I'd have a bundle for you. Horner's
book shows a lot of it, but you won't take the time. Your loss.
John Stossel's book _Myths..._ covers a lot, too. They'd point you to
further research and proof.

Sadly, while I take the brunt for being a reactionary, Ed is as
hidebound as anyone here.

His mind is made up, and no amount of facts refuting his world view
will shake it.

Pity

Gunner

For such a smart guy, Gunner, you are such an idiot. You could be the poster
boy for how to live in denial.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:53:36 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 6 May 2008 06:12:08 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, that settles it, Wes. Scientists don't know anything. It's a
good
thing we don't have any of them involved in medicine, space travel,
and
things like that.


I tend to trust scientists that can set up a experiments to prove
their
hypotheses.

Wes

Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're
hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another.
Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.

It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.

Our skeptics are the ones showing the falsities espoused by the fear
mongers.

Then how about looking into the scientists who expose the fantasies
espoused
by the skeptics?

Who are they? All I see and hear are the fear mongers saying "They're
bought off by the oil companies!"

You could start with the ones I mentioned in a recent post. If you want
more, I'll collect some URLs for you. It's really easy to do.



As I said, I spent just a few minutes looking for rebuttals
to _State of Fear_ and had all I could read -- from real scientists who
actually know what they're talking about. Here's a small sampler:

http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environm...?pageID=1670#1

(That's one, for example.)


Then there's this:

"Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper Doran et al 2002, wrote
in
the New York Times stating that '... our results have been misused as
'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State
of
Fear.'"

Rants against a book of _fiction_? Why not spend your time better and
try to prove or disprove the skeptics' ideas?

It appears that books purporting to be fiction but which have extensive
endnotes supporting the science being espoused are a new breed of book:
perfect for advocating something while maintaining a thin veil of denial.
Crichton has straddled the fence on this one in a most obvious way.



And this:

"James Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
elected
to the National Academy of Science in 1966, wrote: 'He (Michael Crichton)
doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes
about.'"

And so on, and so on, until you could croak. d8-)

Hansen's one of the (40'?) drowning-in-melted-ice mongers, Ed. Try
listening to im in his interviews and you likely won't embrace the guy
for long.

I've read a few of his articles and he is probably the world's leading
expert on the subject. So if there's something that discredits his
objectivity, that would be important.

Therefore, I'm interested in which interviews you're talking about. The one
on "60 Minutes"? Or what?


Let me say this, now: I do not disbelieve all the statements made by
the climatologists and do not believe all the statements made by
skeptics. I really just want all of them to stick to the _facts_.


Fear mongers since 1996 have said there'd be many more and worse
hurricanes. 2005 was the lightest year on recent record. Top
climatologists agree that Katrina wasn't caused by GW(kumbaya).

Which has almost no relevance to the central issues. But why are you
accepting a claim from "top climatologists," in the first place? I thought
they were the ones you didn't trust. Or do you only trust them when they
say
something you find agreeable?

Perhaps that's an area where I'm miscommunicating. I suppose I'm
lumping all the idiots (media/pols/those with agendas) in with the
scientists instead of separating them, but they sometimes blend so
well...


And on and on. I wish you had more time to read skeptical books and
prove it to yourself, Ed.

And I wish you had more time to read the original sources of real science
and see for yourself how you're (likely) being spun like a top, Larry.

Ditto the first half of your sentence.


I can't comment on the science itself -- you probably can't, either -- but
I
smell a lot of opportunists, contrarians, pretenders, and think-tank
propagandists at work on the skeptic side. That's not to say this lends
credence to the mainstream science. It's just that old PR writers can
smell
a PR job at twenty paces, and these smell pretty bad to me.

And what do you call the spinners on the other side of the coin, Ed?

I don't pay much attention to them, either. The money, for the non-experts
masquerading as experts, is in cooking up a story based on the extremes.
They're not hard to spot.

The science is saying there is man-made global warming and that it will have
consequences, ranging from mild to wild. They're the ones worth paying
attention to, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress

cavelamb himself wrote:

A scientist does NOT set up experiments to "prove" a hypothesis.

The experiment is set up to DIS-prove the hypothesis.


http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...939?&print=yes

Might be a matter of semantics, maybe not.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another. Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.

It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.


Neither one can prove their point. The skeptics seem to be able to find
weather monitoring stations that are compromised. Some degree of warming is
natural. I live where there used to be glaciers. A bit further north than
the following link.

Long term, I bet the weather is warming.
http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/ancie...thaw/index.cfm

Now, is it us? Or is it something bigger than our affects on the
environment? How about some damn big rock hit us from space in the past and
we are recovering from it? Volcanic action?

I've heard a few say no matter what we do, the temperature is going to rise.

Let us say the ones that say no matter what we do the temperature is going
to rise are right. Should we now stop letting anyone build on ocean making
waterfront property basically worthless?

I mean, if it is coming, might as well set up no build zones so we won't
have to deal with flood insurance and such. Too bad your property is
suddenly worthless. I guess we can squeeze that one in by saying soon your
property is going to be navigable waters. Sorta how wet lands (mud puddles)
got squeezed in.



Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're
hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another. Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.

It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.


Neither one can prove their point.

I don't think you've accurately identified the two sides. The scientists say
that there is global warming caused by human activity, and they have
overwhelming evidence to back it up. They hypothesize what result may come
from that, and there is a wide range of predictions.

The deniers say none of it is true. They have nothing substantial to back up
their claims, except selective bits and pieces of data from which they've
concocted some stories.

Or is it not the scientists versus the deniers that you're talking about?
Which two "sides" do you see?

The skeptics seem to be able to find
weather monitoring stations that are compromised.

Ho-ho. Yes, seek, and ye shall find. Almost anything. d8-)

Some degree of warming is
natural. I live where there used to be glaciers. A bit further north
than
the following link.

Long term, I bet the weather is warming.
http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/ancie...thaw/index.cfm

Well, then, with whom are you disagreeing? It appears now that it's not the
scientists.

BTW, that link has virtually nothing to do with any of this discussion. The
issue is not the Hypsithermal or its effects on evaporation of Lake
Michigan. g


Now, is it us? Or is it something bigger than our affects on the
environment? How about some damn big rock hit us from space in the past
and
we are recovering from it? Volcanic action?

How about it? Do you have some reason to believe it? Likewise, do you have
some reason to disbelieve nearly all of the legitimate climatologists in the
world about the subject of climate? I sure don't. I don't know how you
possibly would.


I've heard a few say no matter what we do, the temperature is going to
rise.

Yeah, many of the real climatologists say that, too. They say it's too late
to stop it completely. Some say it's too late to even change it very much.


Let us say the ones that say no matter what we do the temperature is going
to rise are right. Should we now stop letting anyone build on ocean
making
waterfront property basically worthless?

First of all, you've hit one of my hot buttons, because my father and mother
lived on a barrier island before his death and it was a constant source of
friction between us. His house was insured in a pool that drove *my*
insurance rates up, and I was ****ed. g

As for which ones are right about whether coming temperatures are going to
rise to the same degree no matter what we do, I don't know which ones are
right. To me, the question is overridden by the question about whether we
*can* change rates of greenhouse emmissions in the first place. That's an
economic question, and I suspect not, so it's not an issue I bother with.

There are other reasons not to allow homes to be built on risky oceanfront
property. I'd be for it if they were insured strictly in their own pool, and
if all emergency services that serve them apply only to them and are funded
strictly by their own taxes. I'm not in favor of supporting the Coast Guard
and state marine police to rescue fools who live on barrier islands in
hurricane territory. IMO, the property is worthless to begin with. It only
has value because there are fools among us who want to build on it.


I mean, if it is coming, might as well set up no build zones so we won't
have to deal with flood insurance and such. Too bad your property is
suddenly worthless. I guess we can squeeze that one in by saying soon
your
property is going to be navigable waters. Sorta how wet lands (mud
puddles)
got squeezed in.

My property is 117 feet above sea level, even though it's only six miles
from Raritan Bay, so I only joke about having a dock in my backyard. I would
not build or buy on a flood plain. That's for people who have been
shortchanged in the common-sense department, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress

Today it was lava shot up 11 miles ! Not to surprising since the pressure
is sky high with the Andie's sitting on top of any lava deep below.

Looks like the south pacific plate is kicking but and shoving the North Pacific
and North American plate further north in the typical split.

The interesting part is Northern Ca will likely be subducted under Oregon!
Time will tell.

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/


Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
After the last few days - the earth will be cooling.

A large volcano in Chile is dumping a large amount of ash into the air.
Oh - and tons of other bad gases that make greenhouse issues.

The thin layer - to become - of ash will reflect sunlight for some years.

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/


Steve W. wrote:
"NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will
likely result in much colder temperatures, according to Marc Shepherd,
writing in the April 30 American Thinker. He adds that NASA was also
quick to point out that such natural phenomena should not confuse the
issue of manmade greenhouse gas induced global warming which
apparently will be going on behind the scenes while our teeth are
chattering from a decade and a half long cold spell."

So the temperature will be warmer but the entire planet will be colder?

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NAS.../01/92541.html




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Wes wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:


A scientist does NOT set up experiments to "prove" a hypothesis.

The experiment is set up to DIS-prove the hypothesis.



http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...939?&print=yes

Might be a matter of semantics, maybe not.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller


That was called "Testing a theory".

If it hadn't worked out so closly, you would never have heard about it.

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[massive snip]

The science is saying there is man-made global warming and that it will have
consequences, ranging from mild to wild. They're the ones worth paying
attention to, IMO.

I stopped following the GW debate some time ago, for a number of
reasons, aside from the fact that it has become hopelessly polarized,
and it would be a full-time job to follow the debate.

First, climate prediction is a *very* hard problem, and the current
models cannot predict the present without lots of hand "adjustments".
For the record, the mean temperature of the Earth is 14.5 degrees
centigrade, or 288 degrees Kelvin (the absolute temperature scale), so a
1.0 degree (C or K) change in temperature is one part in 288, or about
0.34%. By the Stefan Boltzmann Radiation Law, energy transfer by
radiation varies as the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the
bodies making the transfer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law It would take only a
~0.34/4= 0.085%, call it 0.1% change in solar output to achieve this.
It is claimed that solar output is more constant that 0.1%, but again we
are talking about very small changes. And then there is cloud feedback
and radiation seeding of cloud cover. And so on.

It takes a very good model indeed to reliably predict such small changes.

I'm happy that we are spending some billions per year on the research,
but don't expect a definitive answer for some decades.


I do believe that the globe is warming. What I don't yet buy is that
it's proven that humans are the main cause, and also that the warming is
going to be a problem versus merely a change. The Earth has been pretty
warm in the past, and proving that it is again warming neither proves
nor disproves any proposed cause.


Second, even if humans are the main cause, the technology to make a
meaningful reduction in global CO2 emissions simply does not exist.
(Except for nuclear energy, which isn't much help in most forms of
transportation, and has its own political baggage.) None of the
alternative energy sources will come to anything, as none can be scaled
up to the magnitude required to literally power civilization. Recent
experience with the rise in food prices, at least partly due to
diversion of about 25% of the corn crop into ethanol, is one example. A
good analytical tool is to estimate how much land is required for a
proposed energy source to provide the national requirement.

Cutting energy use in half, as has been suggested as the minimum
required to have any real effect, would require a sharp reduction in
national income, unless it was stretched out over many many decades,
slow enough that technology could adapt. Again, what's needed is at
least one major invention, something on the scale of the internal
combustion engine, something that cannot simply be whistled up at will.

Nor are the Chinese and Indians going to give up on becoming developed,
industrial nations. Currently, they are powered largely by coal.


Bottom line is that we will hear a lot about GW, but exactly nothing
effective will be done, for lack of any real solution. But a lot of
money will be wasted.

Joe Gwinn

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It seems to appeal to quite a few of them. It's a pretty lucrative
segment
of the book business these days.

I wonder how many actually read the first side?


On the nutcase left or right? I have a feeling that since the global
warming dogma fits in with the enviro nazi agenda, most en's barely read
the
first side. Holy Grail, yup, global warming

As Wayne said, the real story is in the professional papers published in
the
peer-reviewed journals. Those are the things I used to read in other
fields -- medicine, economics, materials science, etc.

Most of the papers in climatology are much harder to read than papers on
endocrinology, in my experience. I don't know anyone, personally, who
could
read many of them and really understand what they're talking about. But
the
abstracts and conclusions are within reach of most of us.

I think about this when I see comments here and elsewhere about how
certain
the posters are that the scientists are right, wrong, coerced or paid off
by
somebody. I doubt if a single one of those posters has ever read the stuff
he's complaining about.

How about it, Wes? Do you know what the "global warming dogma" even *is*?
Do
you know what they're really saying? Do you know anyone who does? Or are
you
getting it all second- and third-hand from the talking heads and
popularizing book authors, like most people?

It drives me nuts that so many people think they know the *real* story,
when
they can't even *read* the real story. The less people know about a
subject,
the more likely they are to have an opinion about it.

--
Ed Huntress

The thing is, as you say, only real experts can even understand the science
of climatology. It's too arcane for non scientists to fathom. I find this
all the time in fields where it takes real specialized education to know
what people are even saying. I've seen lectures on computer science and
mathematics where I didn't have any idea what they were talking about. I'm
certain that I would be just as clueless trying to decipher complicated
papers on climatology. But that's the whole point isn't it. When things are
over the heads of us commoners we have to defer to the experts. On the issue
of global warming what are the vast majority of the real experts saying.
Yep, it's real. We're doing it with our burning of fossil fuels and we need
to stop right away. I don't have a problem leaving that to the scientists.
What's bothersome to me is when ignorant right wing people; who have no
knowledge at all about the subject, are so sure it's a hoax, and are so
positive in their opinions act like they know what they are talking about.
I'll bet more than half the guys saying it isn't for real have no college
degrees at all but think they understand the subject. That's men for you, I
guess.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Most of the papers in climatology are much harder to read than papers on
endocrinology, in my experience. I don't know anyone, personally, who
could
read many of them and really understand what they're talking about. But
the
abstracts and conclusions are within reach of most of us.


So then we have to take their word on conclusions on faith?

Wes

No, you have to take their word because they know what they are talking
about and you don't. They're also miles beyond you in intellectual capacity.

Hawke

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Bottom line is that we will hear a lot about GW, but exactly nothing
effective will be done, for lack of any real solution. But a lot of
money will be wasted.

There it is. The war on global warming will do little good and vast
resources, that could be better applied to other needs, will be wasted.

Wes

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Wed, 07 May 2008 05:40:37 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Bottom line is that we will hear a lot about GW, but exactly nothing
effective will be done, for lack of any real solution. But a lot of
money will be wasted.

There it is. The war on global warming will do little good and vast
resources, that could be better applied to other needs, will be wasted.

The war on GW(kumbaya) is about as effective as the war on drugs, the
war on poverty, and the war on terror. Vast amounts of money are
flushed with no change whatsoever. Sickening.


Whatever happened to the war on stupidity? They seem to be gaining
in numbers, every day.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Wed, 07 May 2008 05:40:37 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:


Joseph Gwinn wrote:


Bottom line is that we will hear a lot about GW, but exactly nothing
effective will be done, for lack of any real solution. But a lot of
money will be wasted.

There it is. The war on global warming will do little good and vast
resources, that could be better applied to other needs, will be wasted.

The war on GW(kumbaya) is about as effective as the war on drugs, the
war on poverty, and the war on terror. Vast amounts of money are
flushed with no change whatsoever. Sickening.



Whatever happened to the war on stupidity? They seem to be gaining
in numbers, every day.




Naw, politicians only want wars they can't win.
Keeps the economy rolling...