todd wrote:
"DouginUtah" wrote in message
...
"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.

-Doug

Here's another indisputable correlation. Of all the people convicted of
murder in this county, over 99% of them ate bread at least once. With that
kind of correlation, I think it's obvious what the government should do.

todd


This may be the most ridiculous "argument" I've ever seen. Taken on the
face of it, anything can be caused by anything else. For example,
"hundreds of thousands of hunters enter Wisconsin every year and the
deer herd is increasing. Therefore, hunting cause population increase in
deer." Another: "all druggies drank milk when they were kids.
Therefore...."
There must be an evidentiary link between cause and effect. And there is
plenty of hard evidence for global warming. Even if it is caused
primarily by cyclical changes in the earth's atmosphere, the results can
be catastrophic. Do a little checking on the "Little Ice Age" of
1635-1715 (known to astronomers as the Maunder Minimum) when lakes in
England froze year-round.
Someone else "made the point" that we have only 100 years of data. True,
but we also have instruments that can weigh molecules, detect motion in
stars trillions of miles away, and measure pollution to within parts per
billion. Support for global warming is based on hard evidence and not
just aneccdotes or short-term historiography.
The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
millions of people and billions of dollars in property.

Bob

Mark & Juanita wrote:
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,

Because they have evidence.
You imply that GW is some kind of liberal plot. Prove this.

Larry wrote:
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."

Really? Who said that?

Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
one thing: hard evidence. The scientists who know about GW have
evidence, lots of it. But then, since when has evidence ever trumped
belief? Check your TV listings for the Coral Ridge Hour--you wouldn't
believe what they're saying.

Bob

In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:
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?

No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
exist long before Gore was 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 , Bob Schmall wrote:

Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
^^^^^^^^

You misspelled "for". :-)

one thing: hard evidence. The scientists who know about GW have
evidence, lots of it. But then, since when has evidence ever trumped
belief? Check your TV listings for the Coral Ridge Hour--you wouldn't
believe what they're saying.

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

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

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
one thing: hard evidence.

So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and
causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence".

It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take
the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as
scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not
even rise to the level of an "hypothesis".

One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
"computer modeling".

In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not
least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying
upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish.

Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based
solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in
reality. GIGO!

Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better
argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the
point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side.

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

"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?
=================

Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
tobacco companies and smoking.

-Doug

"DouginUtah" wrote in message

Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
tobacco companies and smoking.

Hypocritical horse****!

To stop what? Manufacturing hydrocarbon based products so you could do
things like brush your teeth and drive to work this morning? Were you
comfortable in your cozy house last night up there in Utah with the heat on?

_If_ there is a culprit, don't blame anyone but the guy you see in the
mirror.

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

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:

"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?
=================

Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
tobacco companies and smoking.

Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
journal.

Steve wrote:

Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.

I was going to stay out of this off-topic argument, but the above is pure BS.
Where were your hundreds of dissenters at the recent global warming
conference? I suspect you've got the ratios reversed.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:

"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?
=================

Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
tobacco companies and smoking.

Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
journal.

They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.

A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
randomly selected research papers on climate change
published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.

Zip. nada.

A quote:
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the consensus view; 25%
dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
no position on current anthropogenic climate
change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position.

Read it for yourself:

http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf

My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.

Charles Koester

On Feb 14, 4:57�pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
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

The concept was recently amended to "climate change". Probably due to
the fact there was an ice age preicted 30 years ago, and when the
evidence started to point in a different direction, they went with
"global warming". Now they have come to the realization that they
can't really predict such things, and the pendulum might swing again.
Therefore, they need an all-encompassing term for their fear-
mongering.

The problem I have is that there seems ot be a general objective
consensus that temperatures may be rising, but there is far from a
consensus on cause, particularly in light of the fact that the earth's
history has shown repeated episodes of climate extremes with no
possibility of human intervention. Yet we are supposed to
dramatically change the way we operate in the US while other countries
are not going to be bound by the same constraints.

Seems more like politics to me...

On Feb 15, 10:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:


No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.

--
If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting
to it?

So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement?

In article .com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:


No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.

If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting
to it?

That statement *is* the point.

So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement?

Nobody said that. (Nice red herring, though.) The point is that Gore claimed
to have, while a member of Congress, taken "the initiative in creating"
something that already existed *before* he was in Congress.


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

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

On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
"computer modeling".

In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]

Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
10%. (May not be valid in your state).

Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
strings attached?
Follow the money.
As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
them."
Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
outside and have the stink blown off ya...

Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
in bankrupting your company.

"Robatoy" wrote in message

Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
10%. (May not be valid in your state).

Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
strings attached?
Follow the money.
As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
them."
Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
outside and have the stink blown off ya...

Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
in bankrupting your company.

A man (properly cynical) after my own heart!

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

Robatoy wrote:

When asked
to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
Jersey, Gore replied (in part):


"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
improvements in our educational system."

Gore never used the word "invent," and the
words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.


OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create
and saying invent?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
journal.
===========
I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
are not given credence in scientific journals.

Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed :
ExxonMobil global warming deniers
into Google. The first item was:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ke_it_hot.html

It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say.

"News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to
undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to
overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil."

An excerpt:
"Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that
either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global
climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of
"skeptic" scientists who continue to do so."

However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But
you were civil, so I have replied.

(BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly.
Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not
civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.)

-Doug

Just Wondering wrote:

OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying
create
and saying invent?

I assume this is an attempt at humor.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:


No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.

--

If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting
to it?

So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement?



Global warming exissts, and is caused by all the hot air Al Gore spews out.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create
and saying invent?

I assume this is an attempt at humor.

Lew

No, it's a request for an actual reasoned explanation of the semantic
difference between saying AlGore claimed he "took the initiative in
creating the internet" and saying AlGore claimed he "invented the
internet." Just how is saying "created" different from saying
"invented" in that context?

In article , Just Wondering wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

When asked
to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
Jersey, Gore replied (in part):


"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
improvements in our educational system."

Gore never used the word "invent," and the
words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.


OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create
and saying invent?

Doesn't matter -- it's still a lie, either way: the internet already existed,
long before Gore ever got to Congress.

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

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

I, too, was going to stay out of this discussion.
However...

I did nothing and I survived the "coming" Ice Age of
the seventies. I didn't even buy an extra sweater.

I did nothing and I survived the "coming" population
explosion and mass starvations of the eighties. My
bathroom scale says I didn't miss any meals.

I did nothing and I survived the "cumming" in the White
House in the nineties.

I have tried to keep an open mind on the "coming"
global warming of the new millennium. When the
proposed and infamous Kyoto treaty did not produce any
reduction in "air contamination" yet proposed
penalizing producing countries and rewarding
non-producing countries, I suspected another chicken
little plot to penalize the very successful countries.

I didn't sign up for a coming ice age.
I didn't sign up for famine and too many people.
I didn't sign up for extramarital sex in the White
House.
I won't sign up for global warming. (But it would be
okay if we signed a Toyota agreement, they are great
vehicles!)

But wait, I have just learned there is a killer
asteroid coming directly at the earth and it will
destroy us all in 2010. I hope I can get all my
woodworking projects done by then.

John Flatley
Jacksonville, Florida
--

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in
message ...
| Steve wrote:
|
| Show me a scientist who says that there is global
warming and I'll
| show you a hundred more who say that there are only
global cycles and
| a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
|
| I was going to stay out of this off-topic argument,
but the above is pure BS.
| Where were your hundreds of dissenters at the recent
global warming
| conference? I suspect you've got the ratios
reversed.
|
| --
| It's turtles, all the way down

Andrew Barss wrote:

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?

Well yes, they have. The leaders in any field are well known through the
AAAS and NSF. Most of them do stints at NSF and can hand out grants to
like minded folks.



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

And that contradicts your point above.

-- Andy Barss

"Robatoy" wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not
quali
fy
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based
upon "computer modeling".

In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being
refine
d;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that
has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]

Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
10%. (May not be valid in your state).

Who does fund the research in global warming?

National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private
foundations. Rarely private corporations.

Are there never any
strings attached?

You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see
another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the biases of
the current group of grantors.

Follow the money.

Always!

Charles Koester wrote:

On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:

"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?
=================

Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from
ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only
recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop.
Just like the tobacco companies and smoking.

Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
journal.

They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.

A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
randomly selected research papers on climate change
published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.

Zip. nada.

That ought to make one suspicious.

(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.

Steve wrote:
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including
the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we
forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart.

These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago
that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was
coming soon.

Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.

WHoa, backup, and slowdown there Bubba. It is not "the scientists" who
are idiots, it's the people who take their incomplete work and make
political fodder out of it *pretending* it is science. Science in
the service of politics - left- or right- - is prostitution, nothing more
or less. If you respond to this prostitution of science rather than to
the actual known science, then you get nowhere but into another endless
debate of political ideology.

If I may, let me summarize that I think the current state of the actual science is:

1) There is some global warming taking place. It is slight, in keeping with
the 20,000 or so year trends since the last ice age, and far lower than
all the climatology models thus far were predicting.

2) We are at local (with the last 200 year) highs in injecting CO2 into the
carbon cycle of the planet. BUT ... they are not "all time" highs (that
happened millenia ago) AND no one is certain that a) CO2 actually causes noticeable
and uncontrolled warming or b) That global warming - however much it may be happening -
is necessarily a bad thing.

3) To the extent that global warming is actually happening, there not yet an unimpeachable
*causal* relationship between human action and warming. There is that suspicion, but it
is not yet demonstrated. No serious scientist on any side of the scientific debate
believes humans *cause* GW. The most aggressive claim is that humans are amplifying a
natural process and in so doing may change the quiescent state of things drastically - sort of the
straw that breaks the camel's back model. However, even if this eventually turns out
to be demonstrated as being so, it is far, far, far less clear that humans could actually
modify their behavior sufficiently to make a real difference. One of the reasons not to
rush off and go start randomly trying to "stop" global warming is that it may well be
better to use our limited resources to *adapt* to it's consequences. For instance,
over the past 20,000 years, the ocean levels have risen about 600 feet. This translates
to about 1 cm per year. Now, let's say that human action were to double that. It is
probably a lot more socially, economically, and politically practical to adapt to
a 2cm/yr rising coastline than trying to radically retool modern energy-dependent
economies all at once.

5) There is also considerably more debate about this particular topic within scientific
circles than the popular political discussion would have you believe. That's because
politicians like to use words like "consensus" - as if scientists vote on what the laws
of nature will become. But science proceeds by means of skepticism and *data* - which, to date,
are insufficient to come to any final conclusions about GW, who causes it, and whether anything
can be done about it.

In the end, it is in everyone's best interest to preserve and protect the "commons" - the things
we cannot divide up as private property that are common to us all. However, the political
spewing, exaggeration, and flatout lies about the nature and severity of the problem
are causing otherwise smart people to make really stupid judgments. This is not unusual.
We're terrified by the thought of someone breaking into our homes and killing us while
we sleep (which very rarely happens) but don't think twice about driving on highways that
kill 30,000 people a year in the US alone. The disaster prophets of the political left
and the deniers of the political right have one thing in common: They want to create
and artificial sense of emergency in the minds of the public and then none-too-gently
propose themselves as the solution. The *real* (smart) idiots are people like Gore who wants
to terrify the population into electing him and insert your favorite rightwinger here who
wants to terrify the population with spectre of economic meltdown if we even consider
a strategy of alternate fuels and lower emissions.

The fact is that the politicians are ignoring the *real* driver he Energy independence
for the West would mean we could rapidly disentangle ourselves from the sewer that is
the oil-producing Middle East, Africa, and South America. That's because they don't have
the brains, will, or selling skills to get the public rallied behind them in a cross-partisan
way. The politicians will only act if it is good for "their side", and almost never when
it is just "good". The reason to hold people like Gore in complete contempt is that they
both lie about what is known, and play patently obvious political games while utterly failing
to address more pressing short-term threats.

Bah, humug, and blech upon both the earth-worshiping pantheists as well as the commerce-at-all-
costs worshiping idolators. We all - every one of us - ought to be thinking about what is
in our own long term durable self-interest. It is not in our interest to "save the planet"
if it means the highway death toll goes up 10x because we're all riding in tin boxes with
exploding batteries. Commerce is a good thing - essential to human freedom and happiness -
but it cannot be used as an excuse for justifying *everything*. Most importantly, we need
to stop looking to any politician for answers on these (and most all other) issues.
The fact is that Western democracies are good for defending personal liberty and very little
else. The "answer" to global warming - if it is needed at all - will come from a better
understanding of real science, not listening to Gore's Inconvenient Pack Of Exaggerations And Lies...

(Doug Miller) wrote:

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.


And we radiate a lot.

Bob Schmall wrote:

The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
millions of people and billions of dollars in property.


But will it warm us tomorrow?

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.

-Doug


Then you need to take a statistics class. There is a profound difference
between correlation and cause. The street lights reliably are correlated
to come on when the sun sets. But the sun does not set BECAUSE the street lights
come on. In scientific research, correlation is relatively easy to establish
and can even hint at causal relationships. But actually demonstrating causality
is MUCH harder.

That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. The macro trend
for warming has been positive since the last ice age - well before industrial
CO2 production amplified the rate of injection into the carbon cycle. Is it
worth studying? Sure. But it's also worth noting that the geophysical history
of the planet suggest far HIGHER CO2 maximums in geologic history than we see today -
and correspondingly good environmental health at the same time.

THIS IS AN OPINION NOT FACT: My guess is that the reason the models are so wildly wrong
today is twofold:

1) Climate modeling is more-or-less a "complex system" mathematically. Such systems
show wildly changing outputs with very small changes in input - the so-called
Lorentz Butterfly Effect. The number of precision of variables you have to consider
and, more importantly, their degree of precision, is far outside our present understanding
of climate. Our guesses are thus too coarse to be of much use.

2) We do not have enough long-term reliable planetary climate data to build upon.
Climate fluctuates over geologic time, not 50 years. For models to make any real
sense, we need way, way, way more data than what we have today. Worrying about GW
because there was few degree fluctuation in the last couple of decades is like worrying
about urinating in the ocean - it's a real, but insignificant, factor.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:06:01 -0600, Bob Schmall
wrote:


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

And I guess abdominal pain isn't associated with appendicitis, yeah
right Skippy.

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.


Quite frankly, I never wrote that the arctic is mostly free of ice.
Quite the contrary, on his Web site, Bob Felix cites facts ignored or
lied about by the global warming alarmists. He shows that despite
their claims that the worlds glaciers are melting, fully 75 percent
are actually growing.

In response to claims that oceans levels are rising and threatening to
drown New York City, he shows they are actually falling.

And once again, yes Skippy, the arctic is a refrigerator.

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?

Don't know what you're babbling about there Skippy.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
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.

-Doug


Then you need to take a statistics class. There is a profound difference
between correlation and cause. snip of excellent "statistical" diatribe

Gotta love the echo in here!

Well said, Tim ...

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

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bob Schmall wrote:

Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
^^^^^^^^

You misspelled "for". :-)

That's exactly the way I intended to spell it. Those who do NOT
acknowledge GW have offered little here but sarcasm and kneejerk
reaction. The weight of evidence that it exists is overwhelming.

Bob

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:12:11 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:


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.

Exactly!!! One thing I can tell you for sure is, that these people
will press their agenda to the point that the only solution to the
problem of global warming as they see it, is a reduction in people.

Soilant Green, here we come.


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".

These people think that just because they have a hundred years of
climate data that they have all of the answers, when in fact they have
less than a nanosecond of data for are planet and are completely
ignoring what has happened in the past and how resilient our planet
is.

Swingman wrote:
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
one thing: hard evidence.

So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and
causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence".

Nice terminology, but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world
is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the
cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no
dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence.
Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is
indisputable.


It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take
the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as
scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not
even rise to the level of an "hypothesis".

One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
"computer modeling".

And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an
extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just
that--an assumption.


In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not
least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying
upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish.

Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush
to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who
support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal
advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be
trusted on any issue.

Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based
solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in
reality. GIGO!

Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term
climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the
long-term evidence. As someone pointed out, ice cores reveal climate for
the past millions of years, and show a CO2 level that is unprecedented.

Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better
argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the
point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side.

I'm hardly gullible, nor do I have my head in the sand as some people
seem to have. And you give not one single fact yourself.

Bob

Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
"computer modeling".

In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]

Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
10%. (May not be valid in your state).

Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
strings attached?
Follow the money.
As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
them."
Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
outside and have the stink blown off ya...

Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
in bankrupting your company.

BS, pure and simple. Doesn't happen--or, if it sdoea, it's in exbtremely
isolated cases like the tobacco fiasco. The "scientists" who found for
the companies were mostly employees of the companies. The implication
that all scientists are for sale is ridiculous. And who, exactly, is
paying them to find in favor of global warming? The international
liberal conspiracy?

Bob

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not
quali
fy
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based
upon "computer modeling".

In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being
refine
d;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that
has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]
Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
10%. (May not be valid in your state).

Who does fund the research in global warming?

National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private
foundations. Rarely private corporations.

Are there never any
strings attached?

You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see
another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the biases of
the current group of grantors.

Follow the money.

Always!

Another cynical assumption with little proof to back it up. Sure
scientists can be influenced--but are you suggesting that the thousands
around the world who know about global warming have all been paid off?
Or would take the money if offered in every case? That's ridiculous.

Bob

Leon wrote:
"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.



I live on glacial moraine in southern Wisconsin. Try digging more than a
few inches down and the rocks will dent your self esteem.

On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon.
They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. For example, the
age of dinosaurs, who needed at least a temperate lasted for millions of
years in what is now the U.S. No major climate shifts there.

On Feb 15, 5:13 pm, Bob Schmall wrote:
Those who do NOT
acknowledge GW have offered little here but sarcasm and kneejerk
reaction. The weight of evidence that it exists is overwhelming.

Bob

Facts, schmacts. Global Warming doesn't exist, because they SAY so.
Isn't that enough proof?

Mike