Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:16 am, Bob Schmall wrote:

a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way
galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a
bit of the Sun's heat.
b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes
more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse.
c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to
the plane of the ecliptic.
d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago.

Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d)

Banalities?

No, thanks, I've just had some.

Leon wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here
yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used.

Absolutely correct.

The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
weather changes to be accurate.
The average person can guess as accurately as the models.


There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic,
predictions more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking
climate here, not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:35:13 GMT, John Santos
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
Just Wondering writes:

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?

As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating
the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway.

Which isn't even close to being on point. Eisenhower was in office from
1953-1961. The Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed in 1956. So, Eisenhower
can rightly claim the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System.
In contrast, Gore was not yet in office when the Internet was first created.
Perhaps he could rightly say that he took the initiative to expand the
Internet, but that doesn't sound nearly as good saying you created it, so
being a politician, he said the latter. In the end, I don't really care.
The way he said it left him wide open for jokes to be made. You can't deny
that it sounds funny, can you?

todd

Highways existed long before Eisenhower was elected president. It
is exactly on point.


... and as far as I know, Eisenhower never made a statement that said,
"While president, I took the initiative in creating highway systems". The
interstate highway system was a considerable advancement over the existing
highway systems in place -- compare Route 66 with Interstate 10 -- a
completely different travel model. Ike came back from Germany tremendously
impressed with the Autobahn and the ability to move military materiel
rapidly.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Al Gore statement. The fact
is, in the heat of a political election season, Al Gore made a statement
wildly inflating his importance in the construction of an important element
of national infrastructure. Even apologists for Gore ought to be able to
see that his claim was wildly inflated and he did it solely for the purpose
of gaining standing in the eyes of potential voters. The fact that he got
called on it should surprise no one. Just as his claims to have
"discovered" Love Canal, or to have been the model for the main character
of a novel that became a major motion picture were designed to serve the
same purpose.

Eisenhower proposed legislation to build a new highway system.

Gore sponsored a bill to enable public and commercial use of what
had been to that point solely a military, government and academic
network.

Neither one of them swung a shovel or crimped a connector or designed
an overpass or wrote an RFC.


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

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

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

CW wrote:
.000005%? I'll go along with that.

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
I'll withdraw that argument, but not the rest of my discourse. GW
exists, and we are responsible for at least a part of it.



We know where that number originated, and it's not in any scientific
journal.

Tom Watson wrote:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:53:30 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
[etc]

Remember that All Gore is divided into three parts...
twitch,
Zo4rba

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:00:35 -0600, Bob Schmall wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

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?

So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed
to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything
right and has been known to do some things for political expediency --
this appears to be one of them.


Shrub sucking up to the left.
Right.


Wow, you haven't seen evidence of that? And you call the members of the
right narrow-minded and unable to see the obvious?

Let's see, just a couple of examples, one recent, one not so recent:
1. Let Teddy Kennedy write the education bill early in Bush's presidency.
Teddy ain't exactly John Birch society material. Sucking up to the left?
Absolutely, since Bush was readily willing to chuck one of the pillars of
his original plan -- school choice in the name of "bipartisanship"

2. When John Murtha made his traitorous statements yesterday regarding the
attempt to assure the defeat of our troops, as well as the "non-binding"
resolution demonstrating to the terrorists our country's divided house and
that some are willing to surrender to the terrorists, all that the White
House could come up with was Tony Snow's comment to the press, saying the
administration does not doubt Congress' patriotism but cautioned against
denying funding to the military effort. That is hardly the makings of a
strong stand against the left and closer to sucking up to them.

Other examples abound, including stands on the border and willingess to
accept numerous other leftist domestic plans. Signing that egregious
violation of the first amendment (campaign finance reform bill) serves as
another example.


No doubt he was softening them up to give him $225 billion more for that
sinkhole of a war.


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

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

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

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

But it's nice.

Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
phenomenon.

1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history
got it through his wooden head.


I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think
the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your
opinion?

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on
here
yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being
used.

Absolutely correct.

The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
weather changes to be accurate.
The average person can guess as accurately as the models.


There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic, predictions
more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking climate here,
not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.


Do you believe that weather and climate do not affect each other?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...


I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-)

Um, more like bald eagle.

--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.

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

(snippage of unsubstantiated rant.)

I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
merely practical
when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When the
subject
is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
cook up
the model that makes your patron happy.

Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
some evidence.
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?
And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
argument is completely invalid.
Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if
we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.

Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.

Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
issue. DAGS.

Bob

Mark & Juanita wrote:
The fact
is, in the heat of a political election season, Al Gore made a statement
wildly inflating his importance in the construction of an important element
of national infrastructure.


Omigod! A politician made a wildly inflated statement?
Where's Pat Robertson? God talks directly to him.

Bob
Oh, yeah: didn't Pat R. run for president once?

Leon wrote:
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
But it's nice.

Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
phenomenon.

1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history
got it through his wooden head.


I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think
the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your
opinion?


It says that he's getting smarter.

Leon wrote:
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on
here
yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being
used.
Absolutely correct.

The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
weather changes to be accurate.
The average person can guess as accurately as the models.


There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic, predictions
more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking climate here,
not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.


Do you believe that weather and climate do not affect each other?


Yes, I do. Weather is transitory, climate is long-term.

In article , Bob Schmall wrote:

Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
issue. DAGS.

Scientific American hasn't been a credible publication for a long time. Pretty
much ever since John Rennie took over as editor, their selection of what to
publish has been obviously driven far more by a leftist political agenda than
by any scientific considerations.

--
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:
Leon wrote:
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
But it's nice.

Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
phenomenon.

1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history
got it through his wooden head.


I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think
the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your
opinion?


It says that he's getting smarter.

Wasn't it you, a few posts back, who was decrying the ad hominem comments?
... and now you're making them.

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

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

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:03:17 -0600, Bob Schmall wrote:

Leon wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here
yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used.

Absolutely correct.

The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
weather changes to be accurate.
The average person can guess as accurately as the models.


There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic,
predictions more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking
climate here, not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.

Given that climate is the statistical summarization of "weather", and
that the climate being scientifically codified is the statistical modeling
of the weather as measured, it is relevant that weather models are
notoriously unreliable -- how then can climate models be any more reliable?
If you can't predict weather events with any reasonably high degree of
precision, why should climate change predictions to within a few degrees or
tenths of a degree be relied upon ,particularly for the purpose of enacting
statist policies?


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

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

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

Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.

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

(snippage of unsubstantiated rant.)

I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
merely practical
when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
the subject
is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
cook up
the model that makes your patron happy.

Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
some evidence.
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.

The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
argument is completely invalid.

No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there
remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.

Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if
we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.

Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.

Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
issue. DAGS.

Bob

And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
among he earth worshipers.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:52:40 -0800, jo4hn wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:


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?


So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed
to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything
right and has been known to do some things for political expediency --
this appears to be one of them.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Mark?

There are many occasions where I have disagreed with Bush's positions.
Just because he was the best of the bad choices available doesn't make him
perfect. While Bush is more conservative than the alternatives that were
available, that doesn't make him a conservative.



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

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

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

J. Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:38:02 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

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
Not so. It is the highest it has been *in a long time*, not "ever".

I'm curious--do you have a source for that information? The analysis
that I've seen of ice cores suggest that it is indeed the highest it
has been during the period of time covered by the ice cores. My
research in this area however has been quite limited and I may well be
looking in all the wrong places.


I don't have anything handy. One place to look would be an older book
by Ballings and Michaels called "The Satanic Gasses". It is not a primary
reference work, but may have citations that help. The other place would be
a Google search. If I find a ref, I will pass along.

One other point - The ice cores cannot (as you point out) cover anything before
there was a polar cap. IIRC, a significant portion of the 4Billion or so years
of the planet's existence saw little or no polar ice, hence there is no record
of this to be found in the ice. For this you have to go to the geologic record
which is where IIRC Ballings & Michaels cite the highest concentrations of CO2
known at this time. But, this is an older text, and may well be out of date by
now.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:45 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.

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

(snippage of unsubstantiated rant.)

I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
merely practical
when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
the subject
is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
cook up
the model that makes your patron happy.

Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
some evidence.
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.

The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
argument is completely invalid.

No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
has the most papers published. It is about *data*.

No, it's not about _data_, it's about figuring out how the world
around us works. One needs data to do that, but data alone doesn't
tell us much. It's not until you have a falsifiable model that you
can test against that data that you are doing science. Until that
time you are merely cataloguing.

The trouble with the notion that human activity causes global warming
is that the model is hideously complex and the amount of data
available for the purpose of testing it is exceedingly small. And
it's difficult to get more data by research since to conduct a
half-assed test one needs data spanning 10,000 or more years and to
conduct a thorough one one needs data that covers the entire period
from from the beginning of a series of glaciation cycles to the
beginning of the next period of glaciation cycles, and to collect
_that_ data will take _millions_ of years, and we don't have any way
to obtain such data globally in detail except to wait for it. At
least not unless there is some breakthrough method of determining the
data from the geological record.

The fact that there
remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.

A problem with this discussion is that the global warming advocates
are asserting that no contrarian results are being published, however
is that indeed the case or are they lying about that? I don't have
the time or means to conduct a comprehensive literature survey of
climatology, so don't expect me to answer that question.

Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if
we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.

Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.

Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
issue. DAGS.

Bob

And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
among he earth worshipers.

Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here
after all.

On Feb 14, 5:32 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 14:28:03 -0800, "

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

And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.

I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.

I dunno--if he got the idea that he could have a career in show biz it
might keep him out of politics. ...

Its pretty clear that he has no intention of ever running for office
again. He could change his mind of course, but it would be a
change.

--

FF

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

Yes, I do. Weather is transitory, climate is long-term.

Then I would reason the "man" has not been around long enough to affect the
climate.

On Feb 14, 7:38 pm, 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.

No, the breakup of Pangaea was caused by local warming.


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.


OK, I'll take you up on that by showing you Kevin Trenberth:

Here is quoted as saying, in effect, that there is global warming and
it
its anthropogenic:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334

And here is his bio,showing he is a scientist:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Your turn. Don't forget to include the biographical information
needed to show the hundred on your list ARE scientists and
not economists, engineers or whatever else.

Then maybe we can discuss the "lst of Steves".

The fossil records speak very clearly. Areas 10,000 years ago were
once deserts, now they are lush and other areas where giant lakes and
forests are now arid.

Global cycles yes, man made global warming, a big fat NO.

Do you deny that the Earth's albedo has been changed
by human action?

--

FF

On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, "Leon" 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

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.

I'd like you to show some support for either statement.

Here are some photos showing a buttload of ice lost from Antarctica
in 2002:

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/feat...ar/antarctica/

If there has been a gain since, it is doubtful that it has made up f
or what was lost.

--

FF

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

On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Bleau wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

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

Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
might help you out.

Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.

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

In context, Wolf Blitzwer asked, "Why should Democrats, looking
at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill
Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What
do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to
this
process?

Gore replied, "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."



If you want to make a joke by an overly literal out-of-context
interpretation of a comment, here's another one:

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush

--

FF

On Feb 14, 9:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article et, "CW" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gore never said that.

Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
needed to change to words a bit.

Not quite -- he said "I took the initiative in creating the internet."

Which *also* wasn't true.


The people who DID create the internet, disagree with you.

--

FF

On Feb 14, 10:29 pm, "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.


Most people have no concept of conservation of energy.
Many of those who do, can't seem to grasp its application.

Some from each of those groups may read this and claim
conservation of energy is irrelevant. They probably also
don't understand albedo.

--

FF

On Feb 14, 10:49 pm, "Swingman" 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

Well, I don't understand the lack of "thought processes" of those who can't
grasp the scientific difference between opinion, hypothesis, and theory ...
particulary those who continually engage in a demonstrable and unscientific
confusion of correlation and causation.



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.

Otherwise known as "Statistics of small numbers" ... while you're add it,
add up the volcanoes and buffalo farts throughout history and see where they
lead you.


http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Bob Schmall wrote:

Leon wrote:

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
.. .

But it's nice.

Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
phenomenon.

1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history
got it through his wooden head.


I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think
the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your
opinion?



It says that he's getting smarter.


Wasn't it you, a few posts back, who was decrying the ad hominem comments?
.. and now you're making them.


Saying the dumbest president is getting smarter isn't ad hominem.

On Feb 14, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

...

To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
warming adherents,

I'm very interested in the data on which you base that conclusion.

...
Even more so those who are convinced that all of that CO2
increase is man-made and man-caused

I'm pretty sure that estimates of man-made CO2 are based on
estimates of fossil fuel use, cement production, forest burning
and so on. There are pretty solid numbers for that, don't you
agree?

(what they usually mean is western
civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
industrial nations apparently has no effect).

Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.

--

FF

On Feb 14, 11:19 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
...

... 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.


Indeed, I quite agree that the emphasis should be on measuring
global ice and global humidity. Too few people understand the
concept of latent heat and so do not understand that the Earth
can warm or cool a great deal with very little temperature change.

--

FF

On Feb 14, 11:28 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
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.


If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
doesn't
it?

Screw historical correlation, model the effect.

--

FF

On Feb 15, 1:51 am, "todd" 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?

--
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.


You can show this?

--

FF

On Feb 15, 2:57 am, Steve wrote:

...

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.

As the Polar ice cap recedes more open water is exposed.
Open water is much more effective at cooling the air passing
over it than is ice.


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?

Are you claiming a downward trend in global temperature?

--

FF

On Feb 15, 8:20 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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.


Neither should receive funding. The last comment I heard from a
_real_
NASA scientist on the study of "Global Warming" was an adhomition to
us to refer to the study of "Global Temperature Change", reminding to
avoid presuming a conclusion.

Now, if a scientist wants funding to study some factor that can
influence
global change she doesn't write a proposal to prove a particular
change,
she writes a proposal to measure that factor and evaluates it's effect
on global change.

This is not like English composition where the author presumes a
conclusion and then 'proves' it by writing about ti.

--

FF

On Feb 15, 8:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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.


Why?

--

FF

On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

...

Given that climate is the statistical summarization of "weather", and
that the climate being scientifically codified is the statistical modeling
of the weather as measured, it is relevant that weather models are
notoriously unreliable -- how then can climate models be any more reliable?

If you cannot predict the trajectory of a gas molecule in
a tank of gas with any precision, how can you predict the
macroscopic behaviour of the gas?

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:

(what they usually mean is western
civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
industrial nations apparently has no effect).

Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.

That's an inference, drawn from the fact that the Kyoto Protocol exempts China
and other developing industrial nations from the restrictions that it imposes
on Western industrial democracies.

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

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

In article .com, wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

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.

Why?

Because if Mars is warming, it's pretty clearly due to increased solar output;
if solar output has increased, that would explain warming here too -- in fact,
it would make warming here pretty much unavoidable.

Or perhaps you're prepared to posit some mechanism by which human activity on
Earth causes global warming on other planets too?

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

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,
doesn't
it?

Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.