wrote in message
oups.com...

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


Ok, you provided that support with your link. The peninsula that you
mention has been retreating for 50 years long before our so called global
warming became the new world problem. OTOH as I said and is backed up by
the link you provided the interior is cooling and the glaciers are
thickening.

Larsen B is one of five ice shelves -- large floating extensions of ice
sheets covering the continent -- that's been on retreat. While Antarctica's
interior seems to be cooling and its glaciers thickening, studies show the
Antarctic Peninsula has been warming over the past 50 years.

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

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

Nothing, as long as you acknowledge it as being a religious and mystical
activity, not a scientific one and don't insist therefore that everyone
else join you ...

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

On Feb 17, 12:40 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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?


The solar output as measured near the Earth has been decreasing
during the same period as when warming was observed on Mars.
Do you suggest that a different sun shines on Mars than on the
Earth?

Would you agree that the great Martian Dust Storm of 1971 was
not anthropogenic?

Does that prove that the Depression era dustbowl was also not
anthropogenic?

Or perhaps you're prepared to posit that the Earth and Mars can
have similar trends for entirely different reasons?

--

FF

On Feb 17, 12:58 am, "Leon" wrote:
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.

No. He said humans were dumping some amount of CO2 into
the atmosphere each year.

The next poster said that was 1% of the total in the atmosphere.

If both statements are true, the implication is a 1% increase
per annum, don't you agree?

--

FF

On Feb 17, 1:08 am, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



Earlier, Leon wrote:

"Since 1999 it [the Earth, FF] has been
cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by
over 10% in the past few years. "

and I replied"



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.

....

Ok, you provided that support with your link. The peninsula that you
mention has been retreating for 50 years long before our so called global
warming became the new world problem.

The link I provided says the Larsen B
ice sheet has been in retreat for the last 50 years. That is
the same period over which most global temperature change
models conclude that warming has ocurred.

So where did you get the information about retreat
of the Larsen B ice shelf over a 50 year period that
preceded global warming?

OTOH as I said and is backed up by
the link you provided the interior is cooling and the glaciers are
thickening.


No, you said that "the ice at Antarctica has increased by
over 10% in the past few years. "

the article says:
"Larsen B is one of five ice shelves -- large floating
extensions of ice sheets covering the continent -- that's
been on retreat. While Antarctica's interior seems to be
cooling and its glaciers thickening, studies show the
Antarctic Peninsula has been warming over the past
50 years."

Nowhere in that article is that increase quantified.

The amount if ice lost from Larsen B in 2002 alone is
quantified -- 500,000,000,000 tonnes.

Larsen B is one of five ice shelves -- large floating extensions of ice
sheets covering the continent -- that's been on retreat. While Antarctica's
interior seems to be cooling and its glaciers thickening, studies show the
Antarctic Peninsula has been warming over the past 50 years.

Since the article does not quantify any gains at all in any part of
Antarctica, it certainly does not support your claim of a net gain.

No honest person reading and understanding the article would claim
that it does.

--

FF

On Feb 17, 12:36 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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.


IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
scientific
data.

--

FF

On Feb 16, 10:02 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"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.

You could reach that conclusion, but not by reason.

Reason would require that you evaluate human capacity to
effect the change. Time is only one factor.

--

FF

On Feb 16, 5:05 pm, Mark or Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:35:13 GMT, John Santos

...


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.

In fact, it's spot on.



... and as far as I know, Eisenhower never made a statement that said,
"While president, I took the initiative in creating highway systems".

The statement is true, notwithstanding.

--

FF

On Feb 16, 7:40 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:


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?


That actually makes sense. For once.

On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 17, 12:36 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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.


IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
scientific
data.

WHOOSH! And irony flies right over Fred's head, again.



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

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

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

In article ,
NuWaveDave wrote:

"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



About 6 years ago a great blue heron landed in my backyard,
inside Baltimore city limits, and grabbed the largest goldfish (about
7" long) from our 6 ft diameter pond. As I was running towards the
heron, it dropped the fish, who amazingly survived for several more
years after being returned to the pond

It was really quite a sight. My daughter, who followed me outside,
was 3 or 4 at the time, and the heron was taller than she was.
Its wingspan was big enough that it was not able to fly away
immediately when I approached it; because of trees, bushes, and
a swing set close to the pond, it had to run to a more open area before
it could take off. I was within 15 or so feet of it got away.
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

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

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


For now. Stephen Hawkings has suggested that we need to get busy on that
colonization stuff.

But ... what does he know? he's just some school teacher in a wheel chair.


Bill


--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000714-2, 02/16/2007
Tested on: 2/17/2007 1:14:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Doug Miller wrote:

And by that definition, global warming is not science.


No. The facts CAN be proven ... it's the conclusions that are still at
issue.

We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
opportunity to alter those conclusions.

And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough
to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will
be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and
India look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through
its coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps
even move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars
to secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar
sums in obsoleting those fuels.



Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
there, would it make sense to use this one up?

Then why push the envelope on what this planet can recover from?

Bill

--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000714-2, 02/16/2007
Tested on: 2/17/2007 1:30:50 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:30:50 -0500, Bill in Detroit
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

And by that definition, global warming is not science.


No. The facts CAN be proven ... it's the conclusions that are still at
issue.

We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
opportunity to alter those conclusions.

And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough
to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will
be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and
India look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through
its coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps
even move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars
to secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar
sums in obsoleting those fuels.

The US "obsoleted those fuels" in the '50s. But the same crowd that
is jumping up and down and screeching Something Must Be Done About
Global Warming now jumped up and down and screeched Something Must Be
Done About Nuclear Power and between picketing, sabotage, lawsuits,
and lobbying managed to make it so expensive to start up a new nuclear
plant that the utilities finally gave up on them and went back to oil.

The big problem with fixing the problem in the US is that the econuts
don't want any of the solutions that can actually _work_, they want
some new miracle or else they want to do away with all technology.

Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
there, would it make sense to use this one up?

Then why push the envelope on what this planet can recover from?

The trouble is that we don't know what the envelope is or what
constitutes pushing it or, if "global warming" is in fact the result
of human activity what the consequences of _stopping_ that activity
will be.

_Something_ is keeping the glaciers from coming south again. Can you
prove that it's _not_ the emissions that you want to stop? Can you
prove that it's not part of a completely natural ending of the ice
ages and the beginning of a return to the normal, non-glaciated state
of the planet?

And why is ending glaciation a bad thing anyway? It is not _normal_
for this planet to have significant glaciation. What is your
objection to a return to the normal state of the planet? That there
might be some costs involved in dealing with it? Well guess what, we
deal with it eventually or else we deliberately take action to prevent
a natural event, and that also has economic cost--how much _will_ it
cost to build a refrigerator big enough to keep Antarctica frozen when
the natural conditions that have been keeping it that way end, anyway?

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:14:17 -0500, Bill in Detroit
wrote:

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


For now. Stephen Hawkings has suggested that we need to get busy on that
colonization stuff.

But ... what does he know? he's just some school teacher in a wheel chair.

So you'd support launching Orions?

No? Then how do you propose to move large numbers of people to
another planet?

Bill

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:12:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
NuWaveDave wrote:

"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



About 6 years ago a great blue heron landed in my backyard,
inside Baltimore city limits, and grabbed the largest goldfish (about
7" long) from our 6 ft diameter pond. As I was running towards the
heron, it dropped the fish, who amazingly survived for several more
years after being returned to the pond

It was really quite a sight. My daughter, who followed me outside,
was 3 or 4 at the time, and the heron was taller than she was.
Its wingspan was big enough that it was not able to fly away
immediately when I approached it; because of trees, bushes, and
a swing set close to the pond, it had to run to a more open area before
it could take off. I was within 15 or so feet of it got away.

You're lucky it got away before you got close. A cornered heron will
fight and that beak is a remarkably effective weapon. Don't approach
a heron unless you're _sure_ you know what you're about.

J. Clarke writes:


Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News.

And since then?

Is that a peer reviewed journal? I'm sorry, but personally I don't
give a damn of the government decided to quit spending money on an
agency newsletter.


Their newsletter is not a peer reviewed journal. It is an account to
the US people on how they spent our $20 million.

Apparently the EPA can waste $20 million a year and you are perfectly
happy about that. I am not.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Tim Daneliuk writes:

The fact that there is, in fact, vigorous debate within the science
community about just what the facts are and what they mean, but there
is little peer-reviewed publication of that debate demonstrates how
overtly political the funding process has become, not that science
has reached a conclusion of any sort.

Cite your references, please?

As I mentioned, the EPA spent $20 million to investigate this debate,
and is aggresively funding research into this issue.

Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding.
Reference:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnews...excCol=archive

Here's the research the EPA initiated:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalrese...cCol=a rchive
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library...2004-5-epa.htm

Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research.
They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie.
They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero.

Also consider that the scientists *TRIED* to publish the reports,

"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "

"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."

Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.

Is it science, or is it the government?

Perhaps the EPA wanted to find some scientists that would publish
documents that proved global warming was a myth, but was unable to
find any scientists that would prostitiute themselves by lying.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

J. Clarke writes:

As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they
do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it
except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never
before been tested.

Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals.
And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions.
I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models.

As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they
are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at
issue is the policies of journals.

And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly
regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by
thousands of other articles.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
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.


My subscription lapsed and was never renewed for that reason. Another
magazine you don't want to subscribe to is Smithsonian. Good, but they sell
their list to every leftist cause out there.

J. Clarke writes:

No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.

And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?

First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government. But
of those that are, apparently they approve the research and the
government either censors the paper or decides to not publish the
paper.

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061

"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "

"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:31:34 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote:

J. Clarke writes:


Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News.

And since then?

Is that a peer reviewed journal? I'm sorry, but personally I don't
give a damn of the government decided to quit spending money on an
agency newsletter.


Their newsletter is not a peer reviewed journal. It is an account to
the US people on how they spent our $20 million.

Apparently the EPA can waste $20 million a year and you are perfectly
happy about that. I am not.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how deciding not to waste money
publishing a newsletter constitutes "wasting $20 million a year".

"Bill in Detroit" wrote in message
...
And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough to
have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will be
unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and India
look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through its
coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even
move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to
secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums
in obsoleting those fuels.


Hey Bill, care to speculate on the fate of any politician who said he was
going to take your car away?

Neat thing is that manufacturers and power generating companies will gladly
use or provide power generated from whatever source we want. Ought to be
easy for an intelligent individual like yourself to chose one. Care to do
so?

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:51:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk writes:

The fact that there is, in fact, vigorous debate within the science
community about just what the facts are and what they mean, but there
is little peer-reviewed publication of that debate demonstrates how
overtly political the funding process has become, not that science
has reached a conclusion of any sort.

Cite your references, please?

As I mentioned, the EPA spent $20 million to investigate this debate,
and is aggresively funding research into this issue.

Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding.
Reference:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnews...excCol=archive

Here's the research the EPA initiated:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalrese...cCol=a rchive
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library...2004-5-epa.htm

Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research.
They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie.
They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero.

Now let's see, you've admitted that the EPA newsletter is not a
peer-reviewed journal and yet you're on about how they haven't
published results of research and are using the lack of that
newsletter, which is not the proper venue for reporting the results of
research, as evidence that they are not reporting such results.

This is called "circular reasoning" and is a logical fallacy.

One would expect research results to be reported in peer-reviewed
journals, not government newsletters.

Also consider that the scientists *TRIED* to publish the reports,

"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "

"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."

All of that sounds very dire however how do you know that the results
in question supported global warming and were not related to, say,
mercury in vaccines, or o-rings in solid rocket boosters?

Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.

Is it science, or is it the government?

If you work for the government then you do what your boss says. Same
in industry. That is the nature of the employer/employee
relationship.

Perhaps the EPA wanted to find some scientists that would publish
documents that proved global warming was a myth, but was unable to
find any scientists that would prostitiute themselves by lying.

Did your buddy Grifo mention the EPA specifically as one of those
"multiple agencies" or do you have another source or are you just
jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence that you have
presented?

By the way, you're starting to sound like a broken record. It used to
be that if you repeated something often enough people would believe
it. Now they wonder what line of bull**** you're trying to sell them.
You might want to consider revising your tactics.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:03:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote:

J. Clarke writes:

As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they
do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it
except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never
before been tested.

Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals.

Yes, there have, but most of them were not "popular misconceptions".

And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions.

Such as?

I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models.

Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field?

As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they
are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at
issue is the policies of journals.

And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly
regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by
thousands of other articles.

And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper.

In any case, global warming is the new coolness. Generally papers
that report on the status quo are not "groundbreaking".

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote:

J. Clarke writes:

No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.

And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?

First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government.

Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the
money.

But
of those that are, apparently they approve the research and the
government either censors the paper or decides to not publish the
paper.

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061

"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "

"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."

That's the third or fourth time you've reposted that.

Since it is clear that you have maybe three sources and aren't making
any effort to find more, and since you just repeat the same thing over
and over again, it is clear that I have already seen everything that
you have to say, so there is no point in wasting further time on you.

plonk

Bill in Detroit wrote:

| We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
| facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
| opportunity to alter those conclusions.

An observation worthy of consideration. It seems to me that a wise
person might well consider the consequences of all courses of action
(as well as the special case of "do nothing").

In the absence of "hard" information, we do well to consider all the
scenarios we can imagine - with an eye toward avoiding the seriously
adverse outcomes. To reinforce Bill's point, I'll point out that
avoidance is not a strategy that can be applied retroactively.

| And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large
| enough to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that
| the US will be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing
| nations of China and India look to be harder hit than the US. The
| US has already gone through its coal stage, but those other
| countries are just now amping up to an industrialized society. The
| US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even move beyond petroleum
| fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to secure the supply
| of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums in
| obsoleting those fuels.

Whether we'll be hindered or not is immaterial to the making of the
decisions. If we find that we _need_ to travel from "here" to "there",
the fact that the trip might be uphill or downhill is a secondary
consideration.

Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies altogether.
The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing our
offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en route.
My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.

| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
| there, would it make sense to use this one up?

Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
condition as we found it.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

In article .com, wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:36 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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.


IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
scientific data.

You're completely missing the point, Fred.

If excess CO2 emission is a terrible thing that's going to bring about the end
of the world as we know it --- why are emission restrictions imposed only on
Western industrial democracies, and not on the developing industrial nations
such as China and India?

Kyoto says, basically, CO2 emitted by the US, Germany, UK, Canada, and Japan
causes global warming and must be severely reduced -- but CO2 emitted by China
and India is OK.

What conclusions do *you* draw from that?


--
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 17, 12:40 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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?


The solar output as measured near the Earth has been decreasing
during the same period as when warming was observed on Mars.

Source for that statement? I think that's incorrect.

Do you suggest that a different sun shines on Mars than on the
Earth?

Of course not -- which is one reason that I don't believe your claim that
solar output measured near Earth is decreasing.

Would you agree that the great Martian Dust Storm of 1971 was
not anthropogenic?

Of course. Would you agree that a dust storm that occurred 36 years ago is not
relevant to changes in Martian climate that are occurring now?

Does that prove that the Depression era dustbowl was also not
anthropogenic?

Of course not. Would you agree that that also is irrelevant to any
contemporary climate effects that may or may not be occurring?

Or perhaps you're prepared to posit that the Earth and Mars can
have similar trends for entirely different reasons?

Or perhaps you're just a hypocrite who wants to have it both ways. Here's your
position, summed up in two sentences:

Earth gets warmer at the same time human industrial activity increases --
cause and effect. Mars gets warmer at the same time Earth does -- coincidence.

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

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

In article , "Leon" wrote:

wrote in message
roups.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.

And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra,
exactly how?

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

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

In article , Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

[Restoring the context that you oh-so-conveniently removed]
...Bruce Barnett wrote
Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be
proven, then it's not science.


And by that definition, global warming is not science.


No. The facts CAN be proven ... it's the conclusions that are still at
issue.

Sorry, but you're wrong there. The central tenet of GW is that human
industrial activity is causing the planet to get warmer -- and that's not
capable of being proven or disproven; not within a human lifetime, at any
rate.

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

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

In article , "George" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
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.

My subscription lapsed and was never renewed for that reason.

Same here exactly. I returned their renewal notice to them, accompanied by a
note explaining that as long as Rennie was editor, I would not be renewing.

Another
magazine you don't want to subscribe to is Smithsonian. Good, but they sell
their list to every leftist cause out there.

Yep -- noticed the same thing there too. My subscription to Smithsonian lasted
only a single year, for precisely that reason.

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

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

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:12:48 -0700, Doug Miller wrote
(in article ):

In article , "Leon"
wrote:

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.

And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra,
exactly how?



Ummm, and lets not loose sight of the Vostock ice core data (the stuff used
to show CO2 levels over the past few 100k years).
The temperature changes _preceeded_ CO2 changes.

On Feb 16, 11:05 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, wrote:



On Feb 17, 12:36 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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.

IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
scientific
data.

WHOOSH! And irony flies right over Fred's head, again.


But the point that your criticism is not based on science,
remains valid. Sort of like some of the the folks who criticize
claims that more energy is utilized producing ethanol than
is recovered in use, by arguing that the study was funded
by Big Oil.

--

FF

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Bill in Detroit wrote:

| We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
| facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
| opportunity to alter those conclusions.

An observation worthy of consideration. It seems to me that a wise
person might well consider the consequences of all courses of action
(as well as the special case of "do nothing").

In the absence of "hard" information, we do well to consider all the
scenarios we can imagine - with an eye toward avoiding the seriously
adverse outcomes. To reinforce Bill's point, I'll point out that
avoidance is not a strategy that can be applied retroactively.

| And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large
| enough to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that
| the US will be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing
| nations of China and India look to be harder hit than the US. The
| US has already gone through its coal stage, but those other
| countries are just now amping up to an industrialized society. The
| US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even move beyond petroleum
| fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to secure the supply
| of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums in
| obsoleting those fuels.

Whether we'll be hindered or not is immaterial to the making of the
decisions. If we find that we _need_ to travel from "here" to "there",
the fact that the trip might be uphill or downhill is a secondary
consideration.

Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies altogether.

Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.

The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing our
offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en route.
My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.

The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people who
are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem to
think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see little
difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and using
fuel burned ten feet away.

| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
| there, would it make sense to use this one up?

Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
condition as we found it.

Define "good condition". If you mean "exactly the same" you will
eventually end up fighting natural processes to keep it there.

wrote:

On Feb 16, 11:05 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, wrote:



On Feb 17, 12:36 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

C'mon folks, we've beaten this topic to death. Nobody is changing anyone
else's mind any more, if ever. Let's drop it.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:05:48 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article .com, wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:36 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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.


IOW it was a conclusion reached without any consideration of
scientific data.

You're completely missing the point, Fred.

If excess CO2 emission is a terrible thing that's going to bring about the end
of the world as we know it --- why are emission restrictions imposed only on
Western industrial democracies, and not on the developing industrial nations
such as China and India?

Kyoto says, basically, CO2 emitted by the US, Germany, UK, Canada, and Japan
causes global warming and must be severely reduced -- but CO2 emitted by China
and India is OK.

What conclusions do *you* draw from that?


It ain't worth it Doug. Lefists have absolutely zero appreciation of
irony nor any trace of sense of humor. Fred will continue to press me for
not providing scientifically verified proof that CO2 emissions from China
and the third world do not contribute to global warming, failing to see the
fact that the statement was an ironic jest poking fun and pointing out the
politically motivated, agenda driven parties that crafted the Kyoto
protocol.



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

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

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

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:12:48 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "Leon" wrote:

wrote in message
groups.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.

And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra,
exactly how?

Let's not lose site of the fact that the earth is not an open-cycle
system. CO2 is added and subtracted due to photosynthesis and other
mechanisms. Those processes themselves are complex, closed-loop systems,
thus making a purely "addition-driven" computation show only part of the
equation.


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

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

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

On Feb 14, 1:02 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:
Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm

GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S.
TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH

Feb. 16, 2007 - The combined global land and ocean surface temperature
was the highest for any January on record, according to scientists at
the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The most
unusually warm conditions were in the mid- and high-latitude land
areas of the Northern Hemisphere. In the contiguous United States, the
monthly mean temperature was near average in January. (Click NOAA
image for larger view of January 2007 global temperature anomalies.
Please credit "NOAA.")

Global Temperatures
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.53
degrees F (0.85 degrees C) warmer than the 20th century average of
53.6 degrees F (12.0 degrees C) for January based on preliminary data,
surpassing the previous record set in 2002 at 1.28 degrees F (0.71
degrees C) above the average. Last month's record was greatly
influenced by a record high land-surface temperature, which was 3.40
degrees F (1.89 degrees C) warmer than average. Separately, the global
ocean-surface temperature was fourth warmest in the 128-year series,
approximately 0.1 degrees F (0.05 degrees C) cooler than the record
established during the very strong El Niño episode in 1998.

A moderate El Niño episode that began in September 2006 continued into
January but weakened during the month. The presence of El Niño, along
with the continuing global warming trend, contributed to the record
warm January. Monthly mean temperatures more than 8 degrees F above
average covered large parts of Eastern Europe and much of Russia, and
temperatures more than 5 degrees F above average were widespread in
Canada. The unusually warm conditions contributed to the 2nd lowest
January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent.

During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at
a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate
of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F
(0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature
increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

U.S. Temperatures
The average January temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 31.8
degrees F (-0.1 degrees C), or 0.9 degrees F (0.5 degrees C) above the
20th century average of 30.9 degrees F based on preliminary data. In
the central and eastern U.S., the pattern of spring-like temperatures
that began late December, continued during the first two weeks of the
year. For the month, 29 states were warmer than average east of the
Mississippi River and in the northern High Plains. Alaska also was
warmer than average at 0.9 degrees F above the 1971-2000 mean. (Click
NOAA image for larger view of January 2007 statewide temperature
rankings in the United States. Please credit "NOAA.")

The same upper-level wind pattern responsible for the warmer-than-
average temperatures in the East, brought colder-than-average
temperatures to the southern Plains and much of the West in January.
Hundreds of daily low temperature records were either tied or broken
during a mid-January cold outbreak that extended snowfall as far south
as Arizona and southern California. Below-average temperatures had
spread across much of the country by the end of the month.

The warmer-than-average temperatures in the eastern half of the nation
helped reduce residential energy needs for the nation as a whole.
Using the Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index (REDTI-an index
developed at NOAA to relate energy usage to climate), NOAA scientists
determined that the nation's residential energy demand was
approximately 3 percent lower than what would have occurred under
average climate conditions for the month. This was much less than the
estimated 20 percent temperature-related reduction in residential
energy demand that occurred during the record warm January last year.

U.S. Precipitation
January 2007 precipitation for the contiguous U.S. was near average,
with sharply contrasting conditions across the country. Near-average
to drier-than-average conditions occurred along much of the East
Coast, Southeast, Upper Midwest and the northern High Plains to the
Pacific Northwest. Precipitation was above average from southern Texas
and New Mexico to the Midwest and parts of the Northeast, while much-
drier-than-average conditions were present in parts of the
Intermountain West and California. (Click NOAA image for larger view
of January 2007 statewide precipitation rankings in the United States.
Please credit "NOAA.")

A series of snow and ice storms struck the central U.S. in January,
with severe winter weather as far south as San Antonio and Houston.
Three winter storms affected Oklahoma City. For much of the
mountainous West, below-average seasonal snowfall totals persisted.
Snowpack was below average throughout most of the West through early
February, with only portions of the Northern Cascades and the Front
Range of the Rockies in Colorado and New Mexico above average.
Snowpack that normally builds during the winter is an important source
of water for the western U.S., as spring and summer snow melt flows
into reservoirs throughout the region. NOAA scientists caution that if
rain and snow patterns don't change soon, more areas of the West could
face below-average water supplies this year, despite the fact that
reservoirs in the Northwest and California continue to benefit from
more snow than average last year.

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, drought covered 25 percent of
the contiguous U.S. at the end of January. The most severe conditions
were in areas of southern Texas, Wyoming, the western High Plains and
northern Minnesota.

NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200
years of science and service to the nation. From the establishment of
the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the formation
of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries in the
1870s, much of America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA. NOAA
is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety
through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related
events and information service delivery for transportation, and by
providing environmental stewardship of the nation's coastal and marine
resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than
60 countries and the European Commission to develop a global
monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes,
predicts and protects.

J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:

|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|| altogether.
|
| Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
| hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
| we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.

Umm - ok. I was fairly sure that /someone/ was bound to muddy the
water if I didn't provide anti-nitpick definitions. Let's limit the
discussion to the planet on which we (well, most of us) find
ourselves; and just stipulate that the planet is the recipient of a
bounty of energy produced by a remote fusion reaction for which we
need not provide the fuel.

|| The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
|| uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing
|| our offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en
|| route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
|
| The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people
| who are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem
| to think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see
| little difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away
| and using fuel burned ten feet away.

I've never actually encountered even a single person who demanded that
we abandon fueled technologies in the sense I used the phrase. I can
understand that you are concerned about our hydrogen budget; but I try
to restrict my attention to those things that'll have greatest impact
in the more immediate (say, within the next million years or so) time
frame.

With the time frame so restricted, the difference between fuel supply
10' away from you and that being consumed by our sun should be clear
even to the most obtuse among us...

||| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to
||| get there, would it make sense to use this one up?
||
|| Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
|| question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
|| condition as we found it.
|
| Define "good condition". If you mean "exactly the same" you will
| eventually end up fighting natural processes to keep it there.

Yes - I can see that I really should have been more specific about the
time frame.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto