"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

--
Steve W.

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
"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

--
Steve W.

What's interesting here is that Newsmax's Phil Brennan doesn't question
American Thinker's Marc Shepherd, but both of them go on to demonstrate a
selective skepticism about what NASA has said. When NASA says that La Niña
is causing a cyclical cooling trend within the pattern of the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation, they're both ready to swallow it without question. But
when NASA says the natural oscillation will mask an underlying global
warming trend, their noses go up in the air, as if either of them would have
a clue about how to evaluate either claim.

I think both Brennan and Shepherd are full of crap, and that neither one has
any idea regarding what they're talking about. They have an agenda of their
own (they're both with righty wacko "news" organizations) and it has nothing
to do with science. They can be safely ignored as bull**** bloviators.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
"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

--
Steve W.



They can be
safely ignored as bull**** bloviators.

That would depend a lot on the size and energy behind the buy in don't you
think?
The "reality is whatever we say it is" crowd made a good point. Well, they
made a point....

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.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."

Global warming is a secular religion. It provides all the hooks needed for
every liberal with an agenda to control every aspect of ones life in our
society. A natural match. Liberals get into group think. Liberals used to
believe in freedom as our founding fathers illustrated. Now liberal thought
is a form of mental illness that can't be diagnosed since most psychiatrists
are liberal.

People that embrace this are just like the koolaid drinkers in Guyana.

Btw, it is May, the furnace is running.

Wes

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
"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

--
Steve W.



They can be
safely ignored as bull**** bloviators.

That would depend a lot on the size and energy behind the buy in don't you
think?
The "reality is whatever we say it is" crowd made a good point. Well, they
made a point....

I don't think they did. If you track back to the NASA piece, you'll see what
Newsmax and American Stinker did with it. The implication is that they don't
know enough to have an opinion, but they'll give you one anyway.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"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."

Global warming is a secular religion.

How would *you* know anything about it one way or the other, Wes?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
"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

--
Steve W.



They can be
safely ignored as bull**** bloviators.

That would depend a lot on the size and energy behind the buy in
don't you think?
The "reality is whatever we say it is" crowd made a good point.
Well, they made a point....

I don't think they did. If you track back to the NASA piece, you'll
see what Newsmax and American Stinker did with it. The implication is
that they don't know enough to have an opinion, but they'll give you
one anyway.


I didn't make myself clear Ed. I can see how the Newsmax piece was warped.
My point was that it might not matter that they are as full of crap as a
Christmas goose.
Look at the number of Americans that still believe that Saddam Hussein's
Iraq helped perpetrate 9-11.

There is also quite a bunch that thinks Hillary "missremembered" her Bosnian
experience or that something close to her unrecanted and oft repeated
version is near truth.
I've been shot at Ed and can tell you that it isn't something you'd mistake
regardless your level of exhaustion.
The same is true for NOT having been under fire. Rube that I am, even I
know the difference.

Anyway, and back to the topic, I heard an interview a couple of days ago
that sums things up fairly well. ExxonMobil likes to claim that the science
behind GW is unsettled and the fellow being interviewed pointed out that the
issue was unsettled because Exxon Mobil had paid for a study to "unsettle"
it. That's exactly correct.

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
"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

--
Steve W.

What's interesting here is that Newsmax's Phil Brennan doesn't question
American Thinker's Marc Shepherd, but both of them go on to demonstrate a
selective skepticism about what NASA has said. When NASA says that La Niña
is causing a cyclical cooling trend within the pattern of the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation, they're both ready to swallow it without question.
But
when NASA says the natural oscillation will mask an underlying global
warming trend, their noses go up in the air, as if either of them would
have
a clue about how to evaluate either claim.

I think both Brennan and Shepherd are full of crap, and that neither one
has
any idea regarding what they're talking about. They have an agenda of
their
own (they're both with righty wacko "news" organizations) and it has
nothing
to do with science. They can be safely ignored as bull**** bloviators.

--
Ed Huntress

Let me add that just last night I watched a program on Discovery Chanel
called Expedition Alaska, it was real good by the way. A bunch of scientists
went to remote parts of Alaska looking for sighs of global warming. They saw
lots of them. They took pictures of glaciers and compared them to pictures
that were taken 100 years ago in the exact same place. The loss of ice was
amazing. All over they found one sign after another that the climate was
changing and changing very quickly. You would have to be blind not to see
it. Sea ice which should have been abundant when they were there was almost
nonexistent. Natives told them that the climate was turning hot in the
summer like they have never seen before. Yeah, the signs are there for
anyone with a bit of objectivity to see. Of course, for the right wing
reality deniers everything is just the same as always and there is nothing
to worry about. They're about as believable as Larry (wide stance) Craig
when he says he did nothing wrong in the public restroom.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"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."

Global warming is a secular religion. It provides all the hooks needed
for
every liberal with an agenda to control every aspect of ones life in our
society. A natural match. Liberals get into group think. Liberals used
to
believe in freedom as our founding fathers illustrated. Now liberal
thought
is a form of mental illness that can't be diagnosed since most
psychiatrists
are liberal.

People that embrace this are just like the koolaid drinkers in Guyana.

Btw, it is May, the furnace is running.

Is that what it takes to prove to you that global warming is a hoax?
Something tells me you don't have a background in science.

Hawke

On Fri, 02 May 2008 15:39:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Steve W." quickly quoth:

"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

C: Both of the above. It's weather. Wait 15 minutes. It'll change.

--
Those who flee temptation generally leave a forwarding address.
-- Lane Olinghouse

On May 2, 6:01*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...





"Steve W." wrote in message
...
"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...008/05/01/9254...







--
Steve W.

What's interesting here is that Newsmax's Phil Brennan doesn't question
American Thinker's Marc Shepherd, but both of them go on to demonstrate a
selective skepticism about what NASA has said. When NASA says that La Niña
is causing a cyclical cooling trend within the pattern of the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation, they're both ready to swallow it without question.
But
when NASA says the natural oscillation will mask an underlying global
warming trend, their noses go up in the air, as if either of them would
have
a clue about how to evaluate either claim.

I think both Brennan and Shepherd are full of crap, and that neither one
has
any idea regarding what they're talking about. They have an agenda of
their
own (they're both with righty wacko "news" organizations) and it has
nothing
to do with science. They can be safely ignored as bull**** bloviators.

--
Ed Huntress

Let me add that just last night I watched a program on Discovery Chanel
called Expedition Alaska, it was real good by the way. A bunch of scientists
went to remote parts of Alaska looking for sighs of global warming. They saw
lots of them. They took pictures of glaciers and compared them to pictures
that were taken 100 years ago in the exact same place. The loss of ice was
amazing. All over they found one sign after another that the climate was
changing and changing very quickly. You would have to be blind not to see
it. Sea ice which should have been abundant when they were there was almost
nonexistent. Natives told them that the climate was turning hot in the
summer like they have never seen before. Yeah, the signs are there for
anyone with a bit of objectivity to see. Of course, for the right wing
reality deniers everything is just the same as always and there is nothing
to worry about. They're about as believable as Larry (wide stance) Craig
when he says he did nothing wrong in the public restroom.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hawke...don't waste your time...these are the same guys who think
invading Iraq was a good idea.

Global warming is a fact.

Invading Iraq was stupid is a fact too.

TMT

"Hawke" wrote:

Is that what it takes to prove to you that global warming is a hoax?
Something tells me you don't have a background in science.

I fondly remember being told about global cooling in my chemistry class back
in the 70's.

As far as proof, we will all be dead by the time there is proof one way or
the other. That makes for a nice scam. I'm not going to rehash warming
during the middle ages and such since that would be pointless. As I said,
it is a secular religion, and it is pointless to argue with a 'true'
believer on any point of religious doctrine.

Btw, the earth and sun are cooling. Entropy.

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
"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

--
Steve W.



They can be
safely ignored as bull**** bloviators.

That would depend a lot on the size and energy behind the buy in
don't you think?
The "reality is whatever we say it is" crowd made a good point.
Well, they made a point....

I don't think they did. If you track back to the NASA piece, you'll
see what Newsmax and American Stinker did with it. The implication is
that they don't know enough to have an opinion, but they'll give you
one anyway.


I didn't make myself clear Ed. I can see how the Newsmax piece was warped.
My point was that it might not matter that they are as full of crap as a
Christmas goose.
Look at the number of Americans that still believe that Saddam Hussein's
Iraq helped perpetrate 9-11.

There is also quite a bunch that thinks Hillary "missremembered" her
Bosnian
experience or that something close to her unrecanted and oft repeated
version is near truth.
I've been shot at Ed and can tell you that it isn't something you'd
mistake
regardless your level of exhaustion.
The same is true for NOT having been under fire. Rube that I am, even I
know the difference.

Anyway, and back to the topic, I heard an interview a couple of days ago
that sums things up fairly well. ExxonMobil likes to claim that the
science
behind GW is unsettled and the fellow being interviewed pointed out that
the
issue was unsettled because Exxon Mobil had paid for a study to "unsettle"
it. That's exactly correct.

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)


Has anyone that doesn't have a dog in this fight ever looked at who would be
the winners and who the loosers if Algores vision is correct?

Wes

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

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)


Has anyone that doesn't have a dog in this fight ever looked at who would
be
the winners and who the loosers if Algores vision is correct?

Wes

And who would that be, Wes?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:53:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)


Has anyone that doesn't have a dog in this fight ever looked at who would be
the winners and who the loosers if Algores vision is correct?

Algore says FORTY FEET of oceanic rise. I say "FY, Algore!"
The IPCC, also GW-mongers, say 18" max.
Others say zero to some centimeters.
If all the floating ice melts, there will be no change at all.
If all the land-based ice mass melts, there may be some rise, but we
don't know how much will be retained in the atmosphere as clouds.

I'd choose fusion over fission, but nuke is still head and shoulders
above the hideously noxious burning of coal, which has already output
more isotopes and GW gases into the atmosphere than all the combined
nuke bombs + Chernobyl since nuke research began.

(Ed, have your MBAs and PHDs work on that "fusion" thing, won't you?)

--
Those who flee temptation generally leave a forwarding address.
-- Lane Olinghouse

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:53:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat
dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)


Has anyone that doesn't have a dog in this fight ever looked at who would
be
the winners and who the loosers if Algores vision is correct?

Algore says FORTY FEET of oceanic rise. I say "FY, Algore!"

I think what he said was something that had been reported by climatologists,
that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland, together, hold enough
ice to cause a 40-foot rise in sea levels. If he said that was going to
happen, I'd like to know where. I believe the original said it would take
hundreds of years to melt that ice, assuming you had global warming
sufficient to do so. It was a measure of how much land ice there is, not a
prediction, IIRC.

The IPCC, also GW-mongers, say 18" max.
Others say zero to some centimeters.
If all the floating ice melts, there will be no change at all.
If all the land-based ice mass melts, there may be some rise, but we
don't know how much will be retained in the atmosphere as clouds.

"We" certainly don't know, do "we"? Do you know anyone who *does* know? Do
you know anyone who has a single clue?


I'd choose fusion over fission, but nuke is still head and shoulders
above the hideously noxious burning of coal, which has already output
more isotopes and GW gases into the atmosphere than all the combined
nuke bombs + Chernobyl since nuke research began.

(Ed, have your MBAs and PHDs work on that "fusion" thing, won't you?)

Most of the money I ever made in the shop I co-owned was from working on
that fusion thing. We built 2000 complex, ridiculously over-engineered
electrical connectors for the Tokamak reactor at Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory, back in 1974. It didn't help generate any electricity, but it
did help us finance one of the first CNC lathes in central New Jersey. g

--
Ed Huntress

On May 3, 4:28*am, Wes wrote:
"Hawke" wrote:
Is that what it takes to prove to you that global warming is a hoax?
Something tells me you don't have a background in science.

I fondly remember being told about global cooling in my chemistry class back
in the 70's. *

As far as proof, we will all be dead by the time there is proof one way or
the other. *That makes for a nice scam. *I'm not going to rehash warming
during the middle ages and such since that would be pointless. *As I said,
it is a secular religion, and it is pointless to argue with a 'true'
believer on any point of religious doctrine.

Btw, the earth and sun are cooling. *Entropy.

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

I take it you have no children.

If so your lineage dies with you.

If not you are condemning them to live a far worse world than you live
in.

TMT

On May 3, 5:53*am, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)

Has anyone that doesn't have a dog in this fight ever looked at who would be
the winners and who the loosers if Algores vision is correct? *

Wes

We ALL lose.

That is the point.

From space it is easily seen that we all live on one world with no
boundaries.

Crap in your corner of the world and I get to deal with it in my
corner.


TMT

On May 3, 8:27*am, Too_Many_Tools

I take it you have no children.

If so your lineage dies with you.

If not you are condemning them to live a far worse world than you live
in.

TMT

Minus 10 Points. Ad Hominen argument. No facts presented.

Dan

On May 3, 8:28*am, Too_Many_Tools
We ALL lose.

That is the point.

From space it is easily seen that we all live on one world with no
boundaries.

Crap in your corner of the world and I get to deal with it in my
corner.

TMT

Farmers in British Columbia have started growing grapes and making
wine. So they see it as a benefit.

Dan

On Sat, 3 May 2008 09:21:19 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:53:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat
dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)


Has anyone that doesn't have a dog in this fight ever looked at who would
be
the winners and who the loosers if Algores vision is correct?

Algore says FORTY FEET of oceanic rise. I say "FY, Algore!"

I think what he said was something that had been reported by climatologists,
that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland, together, hold enough
ice to cause a 40-foot rise in sea levels. If he said that was going to
happen, I'd like to know where. I believe the original said it would take
hundreds of years to melt that ice, assuming you had global warming
sufficient to do so. It was a measure of how much land ice there is, not a
prediction, IIRC.

Since I refuse to watch the folly called "An Inconvenient Truth", I
can't give you a direct quote. Horner says that Algore says 20' in the
movie, other sites show other figures. Perhaps it was Hansen who said
40'. I get confused with all those vacillating figures from the many
alarmists who can't get it straight themselves. The only trend which
has been steady over time is the decline in the amount of the danger
they're screaming about. From 7.0 degrees C down to 0.7C rise in 3
steps so far, I believe.

Another quote from Algore is "I believe it is appropriate to have an
over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global
warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are." So, it's OK to lie so you can set up the
suckers for buying into your carbon credit scam?

One more Algorism: "Scientist have an independent obligation to
respect and present the truth as they see it."

"...as they see it"?!


The IPCC, also GW-mongers, say 18" max.
Others say zero to some centimeters.
If all the floating ice melts, there will be no change at all.
If all the land-based ice mass melts, there may be some rise, but we
don't know how much will be retained in the atmosphere as clouds.

"We" certainly don't know, do "we"? Do you know anyone who *does* know? Do
you know anyone who has a single clue?

I don't know any climate scientists personally, but I have read (and
continue reading) their books. Freeman Dyson, not a dummy, is very
skeptical over the climate models. He says they're fairly good at


I'd choose fusion over fission, but nuke is still head and shoulders
above the hideously noxious burning of coal, which has already output
more isotopes and GW gases into the atmosphere than all the combined
nuke bombs + Chernobyl since nuke research began.

(Ed, have your MBAs and PHDs work on that "fusion" thing, won't you?)

Most of the money I ever made in the shop I co-owned was from working on
that fusion thing. We built 2000 complex, ridiculously over-engineered
electrical connectors for the Tokamak reactor at Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory, back in 1974. It didn't help generate any electricity, but it
did help us finance one of the first CNC lathes in central New Jersey. g

Well, keep on it, eh?

--
Those who flee temptation generally leave a forwarding address.
-- Lane Olinghouse

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 09:21:19 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:53:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as I can tell, and common sense indicates, GW is a fact. What
is
uncertain is what it means to all of us.
Now that is truly "unsettled" and unsettling.

Right. I don't know whether to head for the hills, or to build a boat
dock
in my back yard and wait for the flood. d8-)


Has anyone that doesn't have a dog in this fight ever looked at who
would
be
the winners and who the loosers if Algores vision is correct?

Algore says FORTY FEET of oceanic rise. I say "FY, Algore!"

I think what he said was something that had been reported by
climatologists,
that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland, together, hold enough
ice to cause a 40-foot rise in sea levels. If he said that was going to
happen, I'd like to know where. I believe the original said it would take
hundreds of years to melt that ice, assuming you had global warming
sufficient to do so. It was a measure of how much land ice there is, not a
prediction, IIRC.

Since I refuse to watch the folly called "An Inconvenient Truth", I
can't give you a direct quote. Horner says that Algore says 20' in the
movie, other sites show other figures. Perhaps it was Hansen who said
40'. I get confused with all those vacillating figures from the many
alarmists who can't get it straight themselves. The only trend which
has been steady over time is the decline in the amount of the danger
they're screaming about. From 7.0 degrees C down to 0.7C rise in 3
steps so far, I believe.

Another quote from Algore is "I believe it is appropriate to have an
over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global
warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are." So, it's OK to lie so you can set up the
suckers for buying into your carbon credit scam?

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

I'm curious, Larry. Is the idea that he's suggesting lying your own idea, or
something you read somewhere?


One more Algorism: "Scientist have an independent obligation to
respect and present the truth as they see it."

"...as they see it"?!

Yeah, as they see it. That's as opposed to, say, the current
administration's scientists, who present the truth as their neocon bosses
see it.



The IPCC, also GW-mongers, say 18" max.
Others say zero to some centimeters.
If all the floating ice melts, there will be no change at all.
If all the land-based ice mass melts, there may be some rise, but we
don't know how much will be retained in the atmosphere as clouds.

"We" certainly don't know, do "we"? Do you know anyone who *does* know? Do
you know anyone who has a single clue?

I don't know any climate scientists personally, but I have read (and
continue reading) their books. Freeman Dyson, not a dummy, is very
skeptical over the climate models. He says they're fairly good at

Here's a thought from somebody who's been in the publishing business for a
large part of his working life, and who has written chapters of several
technical books: If you want to sell books, be a contrarian.

On a subject like global warming you have two choices: The obvious one is to
go with the overwhelming majority of the science and write a book that says
we're in for man-made global warming. Unfortunately, you'll have about a
thousand other books to compete with that say the same thing. Nobody will
notice your book unless you already are famous.

Or, write a contrarian book. People who don't like the idea of global
warming will scoop it off the shelves; you'll become famous enough that
non-experts will actually remember your name; and you'll make one hell of a
lot more money.

Lowell Ponte (_The Cooling_, 1976) had the right idea but he just jumped the
gun. If he published that book today he'd be the darling of the warming
skeptics. He didn't know any more than climatologists know today --
actually, a lot less. But he could cherry-pick some facts with the best of
them and feed the paranoid mindset who just wants to believe they're being
lied to by all but a tiny minority of the world's climate experts.

At your request, I read Crichton's _State of Fear_, which was a fun read in
the typical Crichton techno-style. But it wasn't very convincing. I went
looking for some rebuttals and found them all over the place. The first one
I found gave me an idea of what Crichton was doing: he claimed that there
were large increases in floating ice chunks and bergs around Antartica. The
rebuttal (by a climate scientist) said, essentially, "duh...yeah, that's
what happens when floating ice sheets are breaking up -- the chunks float
around until they melt." This was backed up by some satellite photos showing
that the floating sheet had shrunk during the period Crichton was talking
about.

So it's easy to be misled. No one here, I'm sure, has the knowledge to
evaluate the basic claims, nor to compare things that Crichton et al. said
versus those said by, say, Al Gore.

I certainly don't. And I don't know anyone who does. But there's no shortage
of people who claim they have strong reasons to believe one way or the
other. I wouldn't even attempt to judge them, but I'm really curious about
one thing: What lies behind their inclination to believe one way or the
other? I'm particularly curious about the mindset and the mental processes
of the people who believe the contrarians. That's why I like talking to you.
d8-)



I'd choose fusion over fission, but nuke is still head and shoulders
above the hideously noxious burning of coal, which has already output
more isotopes and GW gases into the atmosphere than all the combined
nuke bombs + Chernobyl since nuke research began.

(Ed, have your MBAs and PHDs work on that "fusion" thing, won't you?)

Most of the money I ever made in the shop I co-owned was from working on
that fusion thing. We built 2000 complex, ridiculously over-engineered
electrical connectors for the Tokamak reactor at Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory, back in 1974. It didn't help generate any electricity, but it
did help us finance one of the first CNC lathes in central New Jersey. g

Well, keep on it, eh?

Too late. The money ran out a long time ago.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference AFAIC.

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

Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

In article ,
"Hawke" wrote:

Let me add that just last night I watched a program on Discovery Chanel
called Expedition Alaska, it was real good by the way. A bunch of scientists
went to remote parts of Alaska looking for sighs of global warming. They saw
lots of them. They took pictures of glaciers and compared them to pictures
that were taken 100 years ago in the exact same place. The loss of ice was
amazing. All over they found one sign after another that the climate was
changing and changing very quickly. You would have to be blind not to see
it. Sea ice which should have been abundant when they were there was almost
nonexistent. Natives told them that the climate was turning hot in the
summer like they have never seen before. Yeah, the signs are there for
anyone with a bit of objectivity to see.

The data is clear that ALASKA is warming, less clear about the globe.
The pacific is cooling and it is bigger than alaska.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

Apparently you see a difference in meaning between "over-represented" and
"exaggerated".

Do you also argue over what the meaning of "is" is?


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

Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

Apparently you see a difference in meaning between "over-represented" and
"exaggerated".

To me, saying the danger is greater than it is, is exaggerating. Saying that
it's dangerous first and last, and talking relatively little about solutions
in between, would be "over representing."

But I don't know for sure what he meant. The point is, neither do you. And
neither does Larry. What you read into it -- lying or exaggerating -- tells
us only about your own prejudices, because there is nothing in that sentence
from Gore that gives any hint of what he meant, except that it should be
"represented" more than something else should be represented.

Larry's reaction and yours is a window into your minds, not into Gore's.


Do you also argue over what the meaning of "is" is?

That depends on what you mean by "is." d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

wrote:

On May 3, 8:28 am, Too_Many_Tools

We ALL lose.

That is the point.

From space it is easily seen that we all live on one world with no
boundaries.

Crap in your corner of the world and I get to deal with it in my
corner.

TMT


Farmers in British Columbia have started growing grapes and making
wine. So they see it as a benefit.

Dan

Get with the facts man.
Grapes have been grown for wine in the Okanagan for over 70 years.
Yes the Okanagan is in BC.

Josh.

On May 3, 4:20*pm, D Murphy wrote:
A very recent study published by NASA shows that
soot (black carbon) may be responsible for a big chunk of the warming
that was prviously attributed to CO2 emmissions. Soot emmissions are a
whole lot easier to eliminate than CO2. So it's good news. Unless you own
an old diesel or heat with oil.
Dan

That's interesting. Carl Sagan's revised version of Nuclear Winter
attributed most of the predicted temperature DROP to soot from burning
cities.

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

Apparently you see a difference in meaning between "over-represented" and
"exaggerated".

To me, saying the danger is greater than it is, is exaggerating. Saying that
it's dangerous first and last, and talking relatively little about solutions
in between, would be "over representing."

In other words, it means what you want it to mean.

But I don't know for sure what he meant. The point is, neither do you. And
neither does Larry. What you read into it -- lying or exaggerating -- tells
us only about your own prejudices,

Actually, this tells us a great deal about *your* prejudices, in that you
refuse to accept the plain meaning of the words and instead insist that it is
impossible to determine their meaning.

because there is nothing in that sentence
from Gore that gives any hint of what he meant,

Garbage. _What_he_said_ certainly "gives a hint" of what he meant. In fact, to
those to still subscribe to the antiquated notion that words have meaning
independent of who utters them, what a person says is actually a clear
description, not a mere "hint", of what he means. Apparently, you subscribe to
the "Alice in Wonderland" school of meaning, in which words mean what the
speaker wants them to mean.

except that it should be
"represented" more than something else should be represented.

Pfffft. The plain meaning of the phrase is clear: represented more than it
deserves on its face.


Larry's reaction and yours is a window into your minds, not into Gore's.


Do you also argue over what the meaning of "is" is?

That depends on what you mean by "is." d8-)

Exactly so: the Alice in Wonderland school.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

And who would that be, Wes?

Unclear
--
"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

On May 3, 2:14*pm, Josh
Farmers in British Columbia have started growing grapes and making
wine. *So they see it as a benefit.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Get with the facts man.
Grapes have been grown for wine in the Okanagan for over 70 years.
Yes the Okanagan is in BC.

Josh.

That is what happens when I do not make the effort to write clearly.
Google on " global warming wine canada bc" for the full story. They
are growing some varieties of grapes in the Okanagan now that they did
not grow before and starting to grow grapes further north in BC.

I will try to express my thoughts more clearly. The main thought is
that global warming is not uniformly bad.

Dan

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger,
more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't
say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story
about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the
danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It
doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

Apparently you see a difference in meaning between "over-represented"
and
"exaggerated".

To me, saying the danger is greater than it is, is exaggerating. Saying
that
it's dangerous first and last, and talking relatively little about
solutions
in between, would be "over representing."

In other words, it means what you want it to mean.

This is a test, Doug, to see if you have any common sense. Here's Al Gore in
an interview that's going to be committed to print, and you think he means
"we have to wake people up, so we lie about the facts." Is that what you
think he intended?

Here are the common meanings of those terms. Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary's first (non-obsolete) definition for "exaggerate": to enlarge
beyond bounds or the truth. Here's the definition for "overrepresent": to
give excessive representation to.

So, excessive representation means "lying" to you? Or does it mean giving
excessive emphasis? To exaggerate often means to enlarge beyond the truth;
to overrepresent generally means harping on something to excess, overstating
its importance, perhaps, but not lying about it. And an experienced
politician giving an interview is not likely to tell the audience that he
lies to get peoples' attention.

Right? Or do you just think that everyone but you is a fool?


But I don't know for sure what he meant. The point is, neither do you. And
neither does Larry. What you read into it -- lying or exaggerating --
tells
us only about your own prejudices,

Actually, this tells us a great deal about *your* prejudices, in that you
refuse to accept the plain meaning of the words and instead insist that it
is
impossible to determine their meaning.

The "plain meaning" is only "plain" to someone who already has his
prejudices in gear. Or he just "knows" what everything means without
checking up on himself from time to time, to make sure he isn't full of
****. Apparently you didn't do that this time. d8-)

We aren't going to be sure what Gore was thinking when he said those words,
but anyone who thinks that Gore was telling the interviewer that he lies to
make his point just isn't living in the real world.


because there is nothing in that sentence
from Gore that gives any hint of what he meant,

Garbage. _What_he_said_ certainly "gives a hint" of what he meant. In
fact, to
those to still subscribe to the antiquated notion that words have meaning
independent of who utters them, what a person says is actually a clear
description, not a mere "hint", of what he means. Apparently, you
subscribe to
the "Alice in Wonderland" school of meaning, in which words mean what the
speaker wants them to mean.

No, I subscribe to the Webster's Unabridged school of meaning. g

snip nonsense

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:41:18 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Another quote from Algore is "I believe it is appropriate to have an
over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global
warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are." So, it's OK to lie so you can set up the
suckers for buying into your carbon credit scam?

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger, more than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

I'm curious, Larry. Is the idea that he's suggesting lying your own idea, or
something you read somewhere?

It's everyone's idea, Ed. He's a politician. But, yes, I was wary
about his ecological statements all the way back in '96. Once I read
what he had said and written, I knew it was lies, half truths, and
deceptions. Do you note the fact that he is now selling carbon
credits? His little movie and book were good sales material, weren't
they? Do you believe his statements, despite that the gullible Brits,
worse eco nuts than us, required nine separate sections of his book
and movie to have discalimers put on them before allowing them to be
shown in their schools? Do you doubt that he cherry-picked his 900
out of 9000 articles which "proved concensus" of the particular
theories he was trying to push?

Do you trust the climate models, Ed? Don't you doubt them a bit,
given that it's hard enough even to forecast weather for a full week
in advance?


One more Algorism: "Scientist have an independent obligation to
respect and present the truth as they see it."

"...as they see it"?!

Yeah, as they see it. That's as opposed to, say, the current
administration's scientists, who present the truth as their neocon bosses
see it.

While there may be some neocon scientists, the rest of the skeptics
are apolitical/global in origin. Bjorn Lomborg is from Denmark, etc.
As Crichton warned, it's dangerous to politicize science.


Here's a thought from somebody who's been in the publishing business for a
large part of his working life, and who has written chapters of several
technical books: If you want to sell books, be a contrarian.

Have you read any of the skeptics' books? Are they all just neocons or
contrarians to you? Are you giving them a fair shot, or just hanging
in with the liberals who automatically label as "junk science"
anything which comes into disagreement with their ideas, as flaky as
they are?


On a subject like global warming you have two choices: The obvious one is to
go with the overwhelming majority of the science and write a book that says
we're in for man-made global warming. Unfortunately, you'll have about a
thousand other books to compete with that say the same thing. Nobody will
notice your book unless you already are famous.

Or, write a contrarian book. People who don't like the idea of global
warming will scoop it off the shelves; you'll become famous enough that
non-experts will actually remember your name; and you'll make one hell of a
lot more money.

I'd rather have an author, especially a science author, write the
truth. Wouldn't you? Read Lomborg, Huber, Michaels, Horner, and
Bailey, then tell me that you still believe in Global
Warming(kumbaya). I'll bet that you won't.


Lowell Ponte (_The Cooling_, 1976) had the right idea but he just jumped the
gun. If he published that book today he'd be the darling of the warming
skeptics. He didn't know any more than climatologists know today --
actually, a lot less. But he could cherry-pick some facts with the best of
them and feed the paranoid mindset who just wants to believe they're being
lied to by all but a tiny minority of the world's climate experts.

How are we paranoid if we disbelieve the unfounded rants? Besides,
science was founded on skepticism. It's an integral part of it.


At your request, I read Crichton's _State of Fear_, which was a fun read in
the typical Crichton techno-style. But it wasn't very convincing. I went
looking for some rebuttals and found them all over the place. The first one
I found gave me an idea of what Crichton was doing: he claimed that there
were large increases in floating ice chunks and bergs around Antartica. The
rebuttal (by a climate scientist) said, essentially, "duh...yeah, that's
what happens when floating ice sheets are breaking up -- the chunks float
around until they melt." This was backed up by some satellite photos showing
that the floating sheet had shrunk during the period Crichton was talking
about.

I don't recall him saying that, and I don't see it in his Author's
Message at the end. I belive it was someone else saying it. He's savvy
enough to have grasped that summer ice melting concept.


So it's easy to be misled. No one here, I'm sure, has the knowledge to
evaluate the basic claims, nor to compare things that Crichton et al. said
versus those said by, say, Al Gore.

I certainly don't. And I don't know anyone who does. But there's no shortage
of people who claim they have strong reasons to believe one way or the
other. I wouldn't even attempt to judge them, but I'm really curious about
one thing: What lies behind their inclination to believe one way or the
other? I'm particularly curious about the mindset and the mental processes
of the people who believe the contrarians. That's why I like talking to you.
d8-)

I'm really surprised that you're not with me on this one, Ed.


Well, keep on it, eh?

Too late. The money ran out a long time ago.

Alas...

--
Those who flee temptation generally leave a forwarding address.
-- Lane Olinghouse

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


And who would that be, Wes?

Unclear

Well, as I said to Larry, one group that *is* making money is the contrarian
book writers. Who ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg before he decided it was all a
hoax? g

--
Ed Huntress

"
wrote:

What makes you think he's talking about lying? It sounds like the
statement
says you have to get peoples' attention by focusing on the danger,
more
than
you might otherwise do in discussions about the subject. It doesn't
say
*misrepresent*, it says *over-represent*.

So instead of "lying" substitute "exaggerating". Not much difference
AFAIC.

It doesn't say "exaggerating," either. All is says is that the story
about
danger is "over-represented." But compared to what? One writer says that
Gore meant that getting attention requires a heavy emphasis on the
danger
side of the issue. It doesn't say that one should lie about it. It
doesn't
say that one should exaggerate the level of the danger.

That sounds reasonable in context, doesn't it?

Apparently you see a difference in meaning between "over-represented"
and
"exaggerated".

To me, saying the danger is greater than it is, is exaggerating. Saying
that
it's dangerous first and last, and talking relatively little about
solutions
in between, would be "over representing."

But I don't know for sure what he meant. The point is, neither do you. And
neither does Larry. What you read into it -- lying or exaggerating --
tells
us only about your own prejudices, because there is nothing in that
sentence
from Gore that gives any hint of what he meant, except that it should be
"represented" more than something else should be represented.

Larry's reaction and yours is a window into your minds, not into Gore's.


Boy, that's an understatement! What's clear is that these guys don't want
Gore to be right and it's personal with them. They have taken the position
that Gore is wrong and nothing is going to change their minds. So now have
to defend that viewpoint to the bitter end. So, no matter what the truth is
they have to go down fighting all they way saying that Gore is wrong and
they will see all the evidence as unconvincing. But look how stupid they are
going to look when the evidence is overwhelming and no one but kooks,
crackpots, and fools, are still arguing that there is no GW. Oops, wait a
minute, that's where we are now.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote:

Is that what it takes to prove to you that global warming is a hoax?
Something tells me you don't have a background in science.

I fondly remember being told about global cooling in my chemistry class
back
in the 70's.

As far as proof, we will all be dead by the time there is proof one way or
the other. That makes for a nice scam. I'm not going to rehash warming
during the middle ages and such since that would be pointless. As I said,
it is a secular religion, and it is pointless to argue with a 'true'
believer on any point of religious doctrine.

Btw, the earth and sun are cooling. Entropy.

Wes

Yes, that's true but the sun won't burn out for several billion years,
making it an irrelevant fact. If the planet heats up another 6 degrees I
guarantee it won't be good for the human race. Understand that none of us,
what you think are true believers, just decided the earth was warming up
because it sounded good. As you would find out if you looked at the science
on this topic you would find that the vast majority of top scientists aren't
debating any more about this. They have accepted it's truth based on hard
science. A lot of the rest of us have seen the scientific data and that is
why we believe it too. Like we did when we saw the reports saying tobacco
was addictive even when some were saying it wasn't. By the way, how long did
it take before you stopped believing the tobacco companies about that? Or do
you still think the data on tobacco's addictive character is up
inconclusive? You're doing the same thing on global warming.

Hawke

On May 3, 10:14*am, " wrote:
On May 3, 8:27*am, Too_Many_Tools



I take it you have no children.

If so your lineage dies with you.

If not you are condemning them to live a far worse world than you live
in.

TMT

Minus 10 Points. *Ad Hominen argument. *No facts presented.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

So you do not care if your children live in a world made worse by your
existence.

Thought so.

Selfish heartless *******.

TMT

On May 3, 10:18*am, " wrote:
On May 3, 8:28*am, Too_Many_Tools

We ALL lose.

That is the point.

From space it is easily seen that we all live on one world with no
boundaries.

Crap in your corner of the world and I get to deal with it in my
corner.

TMT

Farmers in British Columbia have started growing grapes and making
wine. *So they see it as a benefit.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Meanwhile....

Failing to curb the impact of climate change could damage the global
economy on the scale of the Great Depression or the world wars by
spawning environmental devastation that could cost 5 to 20 percent of
the world's annual gross domestic product.

Seems like a fair trade...some extra wine in exchange for a global
Depression.

TMT