On 14 Feb 2007 18:02:03 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, "Leon" wrote:
The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past
few years.

That one year is warmer or cooler than the next is irrelevent; it's
about the historical trend.
See the graph at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Mike


Several obvious questions:
1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like
urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?

2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or
simply statistical "noise"?

3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those
temperatures during the late 19'th century?

4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored
because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?

.... and of course the most obvious issue, this is a small snapshop of 150
years. That is a relatively small snapshot in time. Small rises in
temperature such as this, neglecting the likely urban heat sink local
warming issues, are very likely due to solar cycles that have nothing to do
with human causes.

I know I certainly wouldn't trust these people to sell me a used car, let
alone radically alter my lifestyle, give up various liberties, or pay more
to the government in "global warming tax" taxes.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ...
Somebody wrote:

Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of,
give or
take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the
supposed
culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
"historical", but what the hell.

Only problem with the above is that it is not valid.

Historical data is determined by core samples, not temperature records.

Result is that historical trends being developed are perhaps more
accurate than we would like to admit.

The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.

As the old saying goes, "What comes around, goes around."

Huh??

Better watch those epoxy fumes, Lew.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07

Swingman wrote:

Huh??

Better watch those epoxy fumes, Lew.


Think about it.

The world is a finite place.

There is a finite amount of resource, water, soil, air, etc.

Every action has a reaction.

If man continues to screw up the world, he has nobody but himself to
blame.

BTW, laminating epoxy contains no VOCs.

Sent an AQMD inspector muttering under his breath out of the boat yard
because he lost an opportunity to fine me.

The expression on his face said it all when he saw the epoxy drum.

Lew

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn wrote:

Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn


It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe
Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.

To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
conclusions contrary to their faith.

To the former point, I've seen other conclusions, but am too tired to go
digging for em right now. It's not worth it anyway, it will only
demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but opposite
PhD." Wouldn't matter anyway, those who have signed onto the global
warming religion aren't going to believe anything that derails that
nebulous theory. Even more so those who are convinced that all of that CO2
increase is man-made and man-caused (what they usually mean is western
civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
industrial nations apparently has no effect).


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:49:27 GMT, Lew Hodgett
wrote:

Somebody wrote:

Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of,
give or
take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the
supposed
culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
"historical", but what the hell.

Only problem with the above is that it is not valid.

Historical data is determined by core samples, not temperature records.

Result is that historical trends being developed are perhaps more
accurate than we would like to admit.


... and the precision with which one can measure temperature by core
samples is? One can measure the amount of snowfall, perhaps a certain
amount of data regarding freeze/thaw cycles, but measuring mean average
temperature to the degree being promoted as proof of global warming? There
are also anomalies such as the "little ice age" during the middle ages, as
well as a brief "global warming" period that followed that. The other real
problem here is that nobody takes into account the tremendous heat
sink/moderator that covers 7/8 of the Earth's surface.

The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.

As the old saying goes, "What comes around, goes around."

Lew


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Feb 14, 10:12 pm, "CW" wrote:
Snopes=another Gore apologist. Event the Democrats (dip****s) realized that
Gore had not only stuck his foot in his mouth but swallowed the whole leg.
They spent a lot of time doing damage control. If you had watched the
interview, Gore's intent was clear.

Nonsense. The Dems attempt at damage control was a direct result from
the piranha-like feeding frenzy of the biased media. What Gore said
was stupid, because he left himself wide open to misinterpretation.
Nobody in their right mind believes that Gore tried to lay claim on
inventing the internet. Gore paid for his awkward word choices but
some people feel the need to take a **** on a corps.... imaginary or
real.

In The Netherlands there is a saying which translates as follows: "He
who wants to beat a dog, can always find a stick."
You label Snopes as Gore apologists. Why? Because it helps you make
your case?
How typical. How Rovian. How arbitrary.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message

[Snip of Swingman's opinions]


I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
dynamic in nature.

-Doug

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "Leon"
wrote:


*trim*

Al Gore's head would explode.

And the problem with that is... ?


Too gorey. I'd never make it past the censors.

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

On Feb 14, 10:49 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
while you're add it,
add up the volcanoes and buffalo farts throughout history and see where they
lead you.


I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
water.
I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
lantern going for a while.


But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.

Robatoy wrote:


I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
water.
I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
lantern going for a while.

Maybe so, but a buffalo burger is totally tasteless, IMHO.

But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.

Even living in SoCal, I'm no authority on Tex/Mex or even authentic
Mexican food, but TacoBell, give me a break.

Lew

"Lee K" wrote:


"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
wrote:
All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.

I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...

The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
winters.

Chris

Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If
it's cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's
because of global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's
because of global warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes,
it's because of global warming.



In that sense, it is a lot like El Nino. Which got blamed for everything
from a shortage of tobacco to psoriasis.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
:aided CO2 is zero. Enough.

: To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
: warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
: conclusions contrary to their faith.

You don't know a whole lot about refereed journals, from the sound of it.
The referees are well-trained, mainstream, reputable scientists.
Many hundreds of them. Do you think the editors of all the major
science journals in the world are members of a secret society
that has an agenda to promote the illusion of global warming? And that they
somehow have been able to identify the minority of scientists whole agree with them,
and have excluded all other scientists from the editorial review process?


: demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but opposite
: PhD."

And that contradicts your point above.

-- Andy Barss

Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
affirming or denying global warming?


--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org

Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will
be introduced into this thread?
--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org

Well, we have gone from "30 years ago scientists were predicting another
ice age" to "scientists who predict global warming will never change
their minds."
--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
affirming or denying global warming?


--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org

How about a job? How about continued funding? Anyone who disputes global
warming is labeled a crackpot, so there's a huge disincentive to question
the conclusions at this point.

todd

"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 14, 10:12 pm, "CW" wrote:
Snopes=another Gore apologist. Event the Democrats (dip****s) realized
that
Gore had not only stuck his foot in his mouth but swallowed the whole
leg.
They spent a lot of time doing damage control. If you had watched the
interview, Gore's intent was clear.

Nonsense. The Dems attempt at damage control was a direct result from
the piranha-like feeding frenzy of the biased media. What Gore said
was stupid, because he left himself wide open to misinterpretation.
Nobody in their right mind believes that Gore tried to lay claim on
inventing the internet. Gore paid for his awkward word choices but
some people feel the need to take a **** on a corps.... imaginary or
real.

In The Netherlands there is a saying which translates as follows: "He
who wants to beat a dog, can always find a stick."
You label Snopes as Gore apologists. Why? Because it helps you make
your case?
How typical. How Rovian. How arbitrary.

I think we're going to have to develop a corollary to Godwin's Law that
applies to Karl Rove references.

todd

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will
be introduced into this thread?
--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org

No need. We already have the liberals' new version of the Nazi
reference...Karl Rove.

todd

Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
J Ren (China)
N Nicholls (Australia)
M Rusticucci (Argentina)
P Stott (UK)
U Lohmann (Switzerland)
R Stouffer (USA)
V Kattsov (Russia)
T Matsuno (Japan)

-Doug


No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
Brennan.

We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
shivering under.

If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
weather fronts?

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:


Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn



CO2, atmospheric levels now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm).
Paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300
ppm there has been an ice age. Every time, without exception.

The same records show that there have been a series of ice ages over
the past 5 million years, naturally occurring every 100,000 years,
with about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
of interglacial climate.

The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. I am more inclined to
believe what has happened in the past without exception, than the
incredibly unreliable speculation about what will happen into the
future 100 to 1000 years from now. Are planet is cyclical, what goes
around comes around.

Does this mean we will be heading into an ice age anytime soon,
certainly not. One thing I do know for sure is that the sky is not
falling, Chicken Little.

jo4hn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn
It has been happening for years,ever since the end of the last ice age
when the glaciers reached as far south as NYC.

Glen

Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:
OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn

It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe
Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em.
Taste like chicken.

Glen

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:41:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry) wrote:

Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will
be introduced into this thread?

Too late, you just did it.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:21:17 -0700, Steve wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:


Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn



CO2, atmospheric levels now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm).
Paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300
ppm there has been an ice age. Every time, without exception.

The same records show that there have been a series of ice ages over
the past 5 million years, naturally occurring every 100,000 years,
with about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
of interglacial climate.

The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. I am more inclined to
believe what has happened in the past without exception, than the
incredibly unreliable speculation about what will happen into the
future 100 to 1000 years from now. Are planet is cyclical, what goes
around comes around.

Does this mean we will be heading into an ice age anytime soon,
certainly not. One thing I do know for sure is that the sky is not
falling, Chicken Little.

What is interesting is that according to those same ice cores, instead
of peak and precipitate drop in temperature, there had been a peak
and hold this time. And that hold goes back far more than the few
hundred years that the advocates of the industrial-emission theory are
claiming. So it seems likely that _something_ has changed that has
nothing to do with human activity, or if the something is human
activity it's not industrial CO2 emissions.

Whatever we're doing, if humans _are_ doing it we bloody well better
keep it up until we figure out the consequences of _stopping_.

That's the big problem I have with the "we must fix this
******NOW******" argument--we don't have any reason other than a bunch
of opinions to believe that we won't be jumping out of the frying pan
into the fire.

At some point, the world is going to warm, whether humans do it or
not. The natural state over tens of millions of years has been warm
enough that there were no ice caps. The only reason that humans think
that the current state is "normal" is that we've never experienced in
our few tens of thousands of years of existence anything _different_.
If we see it as a bad thing then at some point we're going to have to
interfere with natural processes in order to _stop_ it.

The big question, that nobody seems to want to address, is "is what we
are seeing the natural end of the ice ages".

In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
Rove spin.

Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
elected to Congress.

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

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

In article , J. Clarke wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, wrote:

I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
dynamic in nature.

Actually, you *over*stated that by an order of magnitude.

Consider:

Surface area of the planet is approximately 200 million square miles. That's
5.6 quadrillion square feet, or about 800 quadrillion square inches.
Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving a total
atmospheric mass of approximately 12 quintillion pounds, or 6 quadrillion
tons. Four tenths of one percent, approximately, of that is CO2; thus the
total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 24 trillion tons.

20 GT is less than one *tenth* of one percent of total atmospheric CO2.

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

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

In article , (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , J. Clarke
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, wrote:

I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
dynamic in nature.

Actually, you *over*stated that by an order of magnitude.

OOPS! My mistake, not yours. Disregard -- I blew it. See below.

Consider:

Surface area of the planet is approximately 200 million square miles. That's
5.6 quadrillion square feet, or about 800 quadrillion square inches.
Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving a total
atmospheric mass of approximately 12 quintillion pounds, or 6 quadrillion
tons. Four tenths of one percent, approximately, of that is CO2; thus the
total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 24 trillion tons.

Sorry -- it's actually four *hundredths* of one percent, and your figure of
one percent of total is correct.

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

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

In article . net, Lew Hodgett wrote:

The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.

It's *not* a closed system. We get an enormous input of energy from the sun. A
closed system by definition is one that has no interchange of matter or energy
with its environment.

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

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

In article , (Larry) wrote:
Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
affirming or denying global warming?

Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is
warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be
recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.

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

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

In article , Mark & Juanita wrote:

Several obvious questions:
1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like
urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?

2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or
simply statistical "noise"?

3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those
temperatures during the late 19'th century?

4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored
because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?

5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the
recently observed shrinkage of the polar ice caps on ***MARS*** ?

That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the Earth
is warming due to human activity.

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

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

"Robatoy" wrote in message

I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
lantern going for a while.

But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.

Actually, reminds me of a lead singer or two I've known.

When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead
singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay.

.... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the
drummer better beaver shots in the front row!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07

"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.com...


I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
water.
I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
lantern going for a while.


Hell I can do that!

"Lee K" wrote in message
et...

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
wrote:
All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.

I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...

The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
winters.

Chris

Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If
it's cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's because
of global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's because of global
warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes, it's because of global
warming.

I recently heard that more and stronger hurricanes are a direct result of
cleaner air. Less filtration of the sun's heat over the ocean.

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:l3SAh.5880$ov2.4737@trndny06...



In that sense, it is a lot like El Nino. Which got blamed for everything
from a shortage of tobacco to psoriasis.

El NIno translated, We're going to wait and see what the weather is going to
be like, then blame it on El Nino.

La Nina has the same basic translation.

I like to think, Its colder or hotter this year.

On Feb 15, 2:00 am, "todd" wrote:


No need. We already have the liberals' new version of the Nazi
reference...Karl Rove.

todd

You said it, not me. If there is a difference, it is the fact that
Rove is feeding people dirt, and they're liking it. Goebbels wasn't
that clever.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ups.com...

I have not seen Gore's movie, but many people that have, liked it.

Most like sicience Fiction.



Were there ANY hurricanesin 2006? That is so weird... what, there 5
big mofo's in 2005?


Yes , I think 3 or 4 times less than 2005 and that many times less than
predicted.

On Feb 15, 6:15 am, Glen wrote:
Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:
OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn

It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe

Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em.
Taste like chicken.

Glen

Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them
though,
Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me.

Steve wrote:
Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
J Ren (China)
N Nicholls (Australia)
M Rusticucci (Argentina)
P Stott (UK)
U Lohmann (Switzerland)
R Stouffer (USA)
V Kattsov (Russia)
T Matsuno (Japan)

-Doug


No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
Brennan.

We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
shivering under.

Please acquaint yourself with the difference between weather and
climate. Global warming ain't about weather.


If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
weather fronts?

The Arctic is not a refrigerator-- it is an effect and not a cause of
climate. It is now mostly free of ice, as you admit, the result of
global warming. Which, BTW, is the subject of a meeting of 600
scientists at the present. You made the unsubstantiated claim that you
could provide the names of 100 scientists who believe that global
warming is cyclical for every one who believes that is is man-made.
You owe us 6,800 names.

I'll give you the name of one (most definitely) non-scientist who
believes that it is man-made: George W. Bush. Or is Charlton Heston
still your president?

Bob

On Feb 15, 7:55 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:

On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
Rove spin.

Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
elected to Congress.

That's the spin Rove gave it. You bought into it. He's good, eh?
I actually admire Rove, in a sick way. He's one of the brightest in
the administration.
Gore said something that was open to misinterpretation, something that
is quite clear when you read his statement. But that would mean you'd
have to have an open mind, and put biases aside. But you can't do that
anymore, Doug.... Rove got to you first. Now your mind is set, which
also means that we should stop this part of the thread.
If you think Rove has nothing to do with media spin, on a grand scale,
think Swift-boats.

"Glen" wrote in message
nk.net...

It has been happening for years,ever since the end of the last ice age
when the glaciers reached as far south as NYC.

Glen

Farther south than that, Huge boulders in farmers fields in the mid-west
are proof.