On 1/24/2010 3:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/24/2010 2:18 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

Sorry, I don't buy into the "we won't discuss it until you agree to our
fundamentally flawed premise" BS.

Then why do you expect it of others?

If you really mean "posting links" discussing an issue that you don't
agree with because the issues raised don't fit in with your POV, fine?

My point of view doesn't enter into it at all. I didn't express one
(other than that I don't find /opinion/ to be evidence of anything other
than itself).

Tell me then, where else are you going to get the HEALTHY skepticism
that is an absolute necessity in ANY _legitimate_ scientific endeavor?

Hmm. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I have a reasonably good
store of skepticism. As you're noticing, my skepticism factor rises
considerably when someone (however correct they may turn out to be)
makes their emotion a visible part of their argument.

You damn sure don't see it discussed in the media in this country.

So what? Do you expect that even a perfectly honest media is capable of
doing anything more than adding a layer of distortion to /whatever/
facts come their way?

On that note, here is somewhat of a gasp HEALTHY "skeptic" who backs
up his skepticism with scientific research and advances an alternative
theory that could well be as valid as CO2 induced AGW:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

... go ahead, since it's posting another link, dismiss/ignore him as
OPINION while you're at it.

Ok. He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
reasons for making the particular assumption he chose - would you
consider it "healthy skepticism" for me to consider those?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
then why are you shouting?

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.

Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Say what?

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.

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

Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html


Here's a juicy one. They make it sound like it's imminent, but the last
paragraph sums it up - they made up the whole scenario. Sounds scary
though and all because of "climate change".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100124/...storm_scenario

On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

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

On 1/24/2010 7:01 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Ok. He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
reasons for making the particular assumption he chose

Come now, Morris ... the man is well known for his work on using
satellite temperature data ... you are too smart to have missed that as
a basis for his research, so I'm wondering why the cutesy bit of
dissimulation?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
then why are you shouting?

I took your question seriously and answered it clearly and concisely,
and here you go with ad hominem remarks about "shouting"??

"Emphasis" ... and well you know that.

However, it is understandable to take such a tack when your argument is
insufficient to address the point, so we'll leave it at that.

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.

Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?

And here I thought I was wandering in the waste land looking for an
answer, but damn if you aren't more lost than I.

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Say what?

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.

Yep, and that's precisely how I summed up your last post ... thanks for
the verification, but you could have saved your breath my friend.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a matter to
be left to the scientists?

On 1/24/2010 7:44 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/24/2010 7:01 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Ok. He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
reasons for making the particular assumption he chose

Come now, Morris ... the man is well known for his work on using
satellite temperature data ... you are too smart to have missed that as
a basis for his research, so I'm wondering why the cutesy bit of
dissimulation?

Not intended as cutesy - my own weather satellite work (TIROS-N) was
much earlier and I'm not completely ignorant of
hardware/software/interpretation issues. Well before that time I was
convinced that assumptions were dangerous (always so in a logical
context, and sometimes lethal in a physical context). In any
peer-reviewed articles, I expect he provided the rationale for those he
made - but he did not share them with us, just as he skipped any
discussion of accuracy limitations which may or may not have been
significant (but we'll never know).

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been
fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that
there
is no global warming danger?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
then why are you shouting?

I took your question seriously and answered it clearly and concisely,
and here you go with ad hominem remarks about "shouting"??

"Emphasis" ... and well you know that.

And this is usenet with long-established conventions for emphasis - and
I seriously doubt you're unfamiliar with them:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/allcaps.htm and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Internet

However, it is understandable to take such a tack when your argument is
insufficient to address the point, so we'll leave it at that.

I did not present any argument other than for quality of information.

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.

Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?

And here I thought I was wandering in the waste land looking for an
answer, but damn if you aren't more lost than I.

I'm certainly not an expert in climatology - and I'm certainly not about
to tell anyone which information to accept and which to reject. My
ignorance doesn't need spreading - there's plenty enough already without
either of us adding to.

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Say what?

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.

Yep, and that's precisely how I summed up your last post ... thanks for
the verification, but you could have saved your breath my friend.

I could have, but thought it would be good to let you know that I didn't
particularly need you (or Al Gore) to cherry pick my sources for me.

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

On 1/24/2010 8:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark& Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a matter to
be left to the scientists?

I don't think there's a choice, other than to remake those "scientists"
who cook data and/or publish conjecture-as-fact into lab rats.

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

On 1/24/2010 8:55 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

And this is usenet with long-established conventions for emphasis - and
I seriously doubt you're unfamiliar with them:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/allcaps.htm and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Internet

Are you really seeing "ALL" CAPS... or this is just another example of a
penchant for petty dissimulation?

I'm certainly not an expert in climatology - and I'm certainly not about
to tell anyone which information to accept and which to reject. My
ignorance doesn't need spreading - there's plenty enough already without
either of us adding to.

I could have, but thought it would be good to let you know that I didn't
particularly need you (or Al Gore) to cherry pick my sources for me.

I will bow to your apparent SOLE occupation of the moral high ground in
that regard, Morris ... delusional as it is.

What a crock ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 8:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark& Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
matter to be left to the scientists?

I don't think there's a choice, other than to remake those
"scientists" who cook data and/or publish conjecture-as-fact into lab
rats.

There are certainly enough of them.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:14:01 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Poor WeeGee is a True Believer. Maybe he can come up with something.
giggle

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

LDosser wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:240120100931269881%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , Swingman
wrote:

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
shooting at the messengers.

A few more links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ientists-says-
knew-data-verified.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

The bull**** from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...


Have they No shame?!

They *LIED* to us! They played on our *FEARS*! ;-)



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Morris Dovey wrote:

On 1/24/2010 8:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark& Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a matter
to be left to the scientists?

I don't think there's a choice, other than to remake those "scientists"
who cook data and/or publish conjecture-as-fact into lab rats.


Pretty good suggestion -- strong negative feedback loop that should reduce
the shenanigans

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:37:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi
scrawled the following:

On Jan 23, 10:38*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

2nd hottest on record...for one day. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

C'mon, WeeGee, at least _read_ the other material instead of just
drinking your AGWK Koolaid.

"Oh, I see that skeptic's article was written by a man who drove a
vehicle to work. He must be sponsored by Big Oil!" won't cut it.

Do yourself a favor. Watch the vids and -research- what they report
on. You simply have to find something wrong with what's going on if
you do (because it's killing people!)

There are too many of the Chicken Littles faking the stats to hide it
any more. Please open your eyes, my friend. Your local weather is
changing, but it has been hotter there before, and it got cooler
again, just as it's doing right now.

You said to me that Algore was irrelevant. I disagree. He's leading
millions of people down a false path. That ain't irrelevant to me.
Only if he weren't causing any harm could he be considered irrelevant.

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

On Jan 24, 11:29*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:14:01 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Poor WeeGee is a True Believer. Maybe he can come up with something.
giggle


You want to discuss weather patterns with a Canuckistani from the
Yukon who has fled to warmer climes? :-)

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:15:50 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

Of course pollution is bad. But it's getting better. I lived 100 miles
south of HelL.A. I know that city is miles ahead of its old self,
pollutionwise.

Read _Earth Report 2000_ and _Hard Green_. Both have extensive
coverage of the progress we've made in all areas. As old technology
wears out, it's replaced with newer, much cleaner technology. Who here
has NOT replaced most of their inefficient incandescent lighting with
efficient fluorescent lights and/or LEDs? Who here is driving a less
economical vehicle than they did 30 years ago? Few to none in both
cases, I'll bet. Well, except WeeGee, with that old gas-guzzlin'
camper-hauler truck of his, driving all over the world, causing
pollution throughout the whole of the Americas. bseg

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:45:20 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:20:55 -0600, Dave Balderstone
But there are BILLIONS of dollars being made as a result of the AGW
movement, and the path leads back to the UN.

I can't argue with that. That's the way it's always going to be. But,
just like the current movement to go to alternative energy vehicles,
while many are making money on it, there's others who are pursuing the
technology for improvement purposes. Eventually more will follow.

Can you prove that statement, Uppy? (Ah dinna thin so.)

What I'm amazed at is that more of the hybrids aren't being built. The
combo is dynamite!

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:10:12 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
scrawled the following:


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca...


The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.

Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not only
been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes me
how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue somehow
manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side. Well
it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.

Oh, come on. Big Oil funds -both- sides, just as it funds both sides
of the aisle in CONgress.

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:55 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
scrawled the following:


"Upscale" wrote in message
.. .

:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

Not only that, but continuing to burn a finite resource and continuing to
pour countless billions into the coffers of nations which often don't like
us very much seem like foolish policies in their own right. I'm not a
climate scientist so I don't *know* if man-made climate change is happening
(ditto with everyone else here including especially the ones who think they
do know) but it seems to me there are a bunch of good reasons to move
aggressively on replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable sources of
energy. However some folks just want to drive their Escalade down to the
corner for a quart of milk and what happens in a decade or two ain't their
damn problem--selfish and stupid, a lovely combination.

Uh, did you see the stats on the fuel/pollution use for getting to and
from (and around at) HopenChangen (Copenhagen, to those of you in Rio
Linda), DG? UnFREAKIN'real! Hurray for 'your guys', eh?

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
..

Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.



I have posted this before but I think it fits right now:

Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet) to
buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling them
to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets their sins
against the environment with the only real result being adding to the wealth
of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money
and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to send him
their money.

On Jan 23, 11:14*am, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Computer codes can't make glaciers or ice caps melt.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:37:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi
scrawled the following:

On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

2nd hottest on record...for one day. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

C'mon, WeeGee, at least _read_ the other material instead of just
drinking your AGWK Koolaid.

"Oh, I see that skeptic's article was written by a man who drove a
vehicle to work. He must be sponsored by Big Oil!" won't cut it.

Do yourself a favor. Watch the vids and -research- what they report
on. You simply have to find something wrong with what's going on if
you do (because it's killing people!)

There are too many of the Chicken Littles faking the stats to hide it
any more. Please open your eyes, my friend. Your local weather is
changing, but it has been hotter there before, and it got cooler
again, just as it's doing right now.

You said to me that Algore was irrelevant. I disagree. He's leading
millions of people down a false path. That ain't irrelevant to me.
Only if he weren't causing any harm could he be considered irrelevant.


Larry, the Debate is Over!

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
LDosser wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:240120100931269881%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , Swingman
wrote:

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics
and
shooting at the messengers.

A few more links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ientists-says-
knew-data-verified.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

The bull**** from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...


Have they No shame?!

They *LIED* to us! They played on our *FEARS*! ;-)

Some of them will live to regret those actions as the budget cuts fall
around their ears.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:15:50 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

Of course pollution is bad. But it's getting better. I lived 100 miles
south of HelL.A. I know that city is miles ahead of its old self,
pollutionwise.

Last time I was there was about 1995. I love the city, but it was Still Hell
at that time. A total rebreather!

CW wrote:
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
.

Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall
Street are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.



I have posted this before but I think it fits right now:

Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
consumption of his house.

Yep, yet another of his convenient lies. If there was already a system in
place to trade carbon credits then we wouldn't need new laws to implement
carbon credits. Sounds to me like scammer lobbying to legitimize his scam.

Near as I know, there is no requirement
(yet) to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I
know, no regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It
would appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer
and a little design skill could print up a few million of these
things and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing
their money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment
with the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
send him their money.

I oughta try that--I wonder if anyone has tried selling carbon credits on
ebay?

Father Haskell wrote:
On Jan 23, 11:14 am, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Computer codes can't make glaciers or ice caps melt.

And now we're seeing that some of the stuff about "glaciers or ice caps
melting" was a lie. Geez, do try to follow the news.

The models are crap and the data is crap and the whole IPCC needs to be
fired and investigated for fraud.

There may be a real problem but at this point those *******s have screwed
the pooch so badly that we pretty much need to start over to arrive at any
real truth. Oh, and this time somebody needs to put a muzzle on Gore.

While they're about it they should investigate the Nobel Peace Prize
committee--they've been making some pretty dodgy issuances lately.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:33:41 -0800, "CW"
wrote:


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca...
.

Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.



I have posted this before but I think it fits right now:

Al Gore has stated that he bought carbon credits to offset the energy
consumption of his house. Near as I know, there is no requirement (yet) to
buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I know, no
regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It would appear
that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer and a little design
skill could print up a few million of these things and get rich selling them
to those that feel that throwing their money away somehow offsets their sins
against the environment with the only real result being adding to the wealth
of the issuing company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money
and God will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to send him
their money.
I murdered someone so I sent money to an orphanage. Call me even.
Carbon offset credits **** me off.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

LDosser wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:240120100931269881%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , Swingman
wrote:

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two
posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics
and shooting at the messengers.

A few more links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-scientists-
says-
knew-data-verified.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

The bull**** from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...


Have they No shame?!

They *LIED* to us! They played on our *FEARS*! ;-)



The whole problem with this is it's become emotional and when Science
becomes emotional it's not science anymore!! Short and pithy.
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz

On Jan 25, 3:27*am, Father Haskell wrote:
On Jan 23, 11:14*am, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Computer codes can't make glaciers or ice caps melt.

No, but they can mess with the numbers which are supposed to indicate
WHY they're melting.
We're going through a warming phase, now let's create some fear into
that population that has way too much money. Let's harvest some more
from the serfs, The Great Unwashed believe the authority of the
scientists who DO mess with the computer models/numbers.
Regular independent business guys like myself KNOW we're, once again,
being screwed with.
I, for once, would like to keep some of that money that I earn. That
way, *I* get to decide if I want to hire people, support the economy
in MY way.... and not being led by a leash to the Extraction Station
once a year. (Tax)
I am all for survival of the fittest, make-all-you-can, keep-as-much-
as-possible, but I do NOT like corporations that have become so big
that they set the agendas on a political level along with the bankers.
Those *******s have no business telling me how to run MY business.
That includes them trying to tell me that *I* need to be penalized for
using a lot of electricity in order to run my business and keep people
employed.
..
..
It's just another tax being justified by fudged numbers.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:38:15 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

On 1/24/2010 8:28 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In , LDosser
wrote:

"Dave wrote in message
news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In articleqfednUzbYdO4VcbWnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@earthlink .com, DGDevin
wrote:

"Dave wrote in message
news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...


The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.

Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
only
been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes
me
how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue
somehow
manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side.
Well
it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.

Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.

They're making big money from the AGW hysteria.


They OWN it!

Much in the same way that Enron made millions off of the acid rain
scare in the late 20th century.

One of the infamous leaked e-mails from CRU angling for financing for A
"new building" by Shell:

But don't expect an AGWKTBs to own up to any of that rubbing up
against the boys from Big Oil.


http://assassinationscience.com/clim...0962818260.txt

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
shooting at the messengers.

And that's all you should ever expect from AGWK True Believers. Some
of you guys are forgetting to add the "Kumbaya" to "AGW", so
straighten up, eh?

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:31:26 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Swingman
wrote:

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
shooting at the messengers.

A few more links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ientists-says-
knew-data-verified.html

BANG. There goes the other foot.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

Follow the money.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

Follow the politics. The "rapidly rising costs" aren't due to GW,
they're due to AGWK hysteria and hanging dramatic (yet totally
ineffectual) anti-warming projects onto the economy.


The bull**** from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...

No kidding. sigh The question is: Will mainstream media even
_carry_ these messages out to the AGWKTBs? I know they won't shout
them out like they do with all the doom and gloom predictions, but
will the UK Times be it?

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

In article 250120100905262832%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone. ca, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:
What I'm amazed at is that more of the hybrids aren't being built. The
combo is dynamite!

They're still too spendy for me. Too much cost, too little benefit. If
I could recover the extra cost in 5 years with savings in running cost,
I'd be interested. But as long as the pitch is "will nobody think of
the children!" I ain't biting.

Too much cost, and *no* net benefit when all is considered. Checked into how
environmentally dirty it is to mine the nickel to make the batteries for those
things? Not to mention the energy costs of building a new vehicle. Me, I'm
into recycling, big time. I don't mess around with recycling a few pounds
of cans or bottles (which we use very little of anyway) -- I recycle tons at a
time: when I need a car, I buy used, never new.

On 01/25/2010 09:21 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

I don't mess around with recycling a few pounds
of cans or bottles (which we use very little of anyway) -- I recycle tons at a
time: when I need a car, I buy used, never new.

That makes no sense. Consider the following scenarios:

a) I buy a new car and drive it till it's dead.

b) I buy a new car, drive it for a while, then buy another new car and
sell my old one (to someone who drives it till it's dead).

c) I buy a used car and drive it till it's dead, then buy another used
car and drive it till it's dead.

In all cases the cars end up at the scrapyard to be recycled anyways.
Whether you buy new or used really makes little difference in the end
unless so many people are buying new that usable cars end up being
scrapped unnecessarily.

It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.

On the other hand, if you're planning on turning over vehicles every few
years then it definitely makes financial sense to buy used.

Chris

In article , Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/25/2010 09:21 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

I don't mess around with recycling a few pounds
of cans or bottles (which we use very little of anyway) -- I recycle tons at
a
time: when I need a car, I buy used, never new.

That makes no sense. Consider the following scenarios:

You haven't thought it all the way through. :-)

a) I buy a new car and drive it till it's dead.

b) I buy a new car, drive it for a while, then buy another new car and
sell my old one (to someone who drives it till it's dead).

c) I buy a used car and drive it till it's dead, then buy another used
car and drive it till it's dead.

In all cases the cars end up at the scrapyard to be recycled anyways.
Whether you buy new or used really makes little difference in the end
unless so many people are buying new that usable cars end up being
scrapped unnecessarily.

And that, my friend, is exactly what happens: usable cars end up being
scrapped unnecessarily.

It is almost always less expensive, and uses less resources, to maintain and
repair equipment rather than replacing it.

It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.

Do the math. Buying a new car is *never* financially sound. Buy used, and let
someone else eat the depreciation.

On the other hand, if you're planning on turning over vehicles every few
years then it definitely makes financial sense to buy used.

It makes financial sense to buy used _in all cases_. Do the math. You pay a
*very* high premium for the privilege of driving a new car. Here's an example.
In 1991, I bought a 1984 Buick LeSabre, with 57K miles on it, for $4250.
Original sticker price was $14,900-something -- $10K+ depreciation in seven
years. I sold the car ten years later for $900, still running just fine, with
211K miles on it. Purchase cost amortized over the time I owned it: less than
fifty bucks a month.

Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:15 pm, Swingman wrote:
On 1/23/2010 11:37 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:



On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65
degrees in Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to
project data 1200 miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we
used to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any
more. We actually got a couple of days last year after a few years
of the temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot
temperatures last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking
weather for climate" ...

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Yabbut 20 years of weather data shows what the climate is. :-)


Not according to the climatologists. 100 years of temperature data show
COOLING, which is clearly "weather." Only when "adjustments" are applied,
yielding "warming" do these readings indicate "climate."

Robatoy wrote:

Trying to make any of the science stick is like trying to sew a button
onto a poached egg.
It's like farting in a hurricane.... you KNOW that fart is in there
and you KNOW it HAS TO alter that hurricane in some way...but...

It is all hot air and bull**** feeding on itself. Hoping for real
science is optimistic...IMHO. G

According to chaos theory, the flapping of a butterfly's wings in the Amazon
could trigger a hurricane in the Atlantic.

The proposed solutions to the possibility of AGW are the equivalent to
eradicating all the Amazonian butterflies in order to prevent hurricanes.

How about we study responses to global warming instead of trying to mitigate
it? That is, instead of shutting down industry, we create more businesses to
build dikes around coastal cities and the like?

On 01/25/2010 10:53 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Do the math. Buying a new car is *never* financially sound. Buy used, and let
someone else eat the depreciation.

I'm not arguing that it *can* make sense to buy used, but it depends on
what's available in your area. I'm just saying that at the time I was
looking to buy a car, the type of car I wanted to buy was selling used
for significant fractions of the new price.

Even now, a new Matrix XR is about $20500 with 0% financing and some
incentives added on top. Checking the local auto trader listings, a
2008 with 45000km is currently $18000. A 2006 with 79000km is $15000, a
2004 with 157000km is $11000.

Chris

In article , Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/25/2010 10:53 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Do the math. Buying a new car is *never* financially sound. Buy used, and let

someone else eat the depreciation.

I'm not arguing that it *can* make sense to buy used, but it depends on
what's available in your area. I'm just saying that at the time I was
looking to buy a car, the type of car I wanted to buy was selling used
for significant fractions of the new price.

Even now, a new Matrix XR is about $20500 with 0% financing and some
incentives added on top. Checking the local auto trader listings, a
2008 with 45000km is currently $18000. A 2006 with 79000km is $15000, a
2004 with 157000km is $11000.

Assuming the expected life of the vehicle to be 250,000 miles (400,000 km),
and amortizing the purchase cost over the remaining life:

new: $0.0513/km
2008: $0.0507/km
2006: $0.0467/km
2004: $0.0453/km

Like I keep saying: do the math. It does *not* make financial sense to buy
new. You pay a very large premium for the privilege of driving a new car. If
you like driving a new car enough that you're willing to pay that premium,
fine. But if you think you're saving money, you're fooling yourself.

And the older the car is, the better the deal is (up to a point, of course --
I doubt I'd be interested in buying a 25-year-old used car...).

My most recent used car purchase: 1999 Saturn SL2, two years ago, with 90,000
miles. Assuming expected life of 200,000 miles, my purchase cost of $3300
amortized over the remaining life is $0.03/mile = $0.0186/km. That's U.S.
dollars, of course, but it's still not much over CDN$0.02/km.

(Doug Miller) writes:
In article , Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/25/2010 10:53 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Do the math. Buying a new car is *never* financially sound. Buy used, and let

someone else eat the depreciation.

I'm not arguing that it *can* make sense to buy used, but it depends on
what's available in your area. I'm just saying that at the time I was
looking to buy a car, the type of car I wanted to buy was selling used
for significant fractions of the new price.

Even now, a new Matrix XR is about $20500 with 0% financing and some
incentives added on top. Checking the local auto trader listings, a
2008 with 45000km is currently $18000. A 2006 with 79000km is $15000, a
2004 with 157000km is $11000.

Assuming the expected life of the vehicle to be 250,000 miles (400,000 km),
and amortizing the purchase cost over the remaining life:

new: $0.0513/km
2008: $0.0507/km
2006: $0.0467/km
2004: $0.0453/km

Like I keep saying: do the math. It does *not* make financial sense to buy
new. You pay a very large premium for the privilege of driving a new car. If
you like driving a new car enough that you're willing to pay that premium,
fine. But if you think you're saving money, you're fooling yourself.

And the older the car is, the better the deal is (up to a point, of course --
I doubt I'd be interested in buying a 25-year-old used car...).

My most recent used car purchase: 1999 Saturn SL2, two years ago, with 90,000
miles. Assuming expected life of 200,000 miles, my purchase cost of $3300
amortized over the remaining life is $0.03/mile = $0.0186/km. That's U.S.
dollars, of course, but it's still not much over CDN$0.02/km.

Have you factored in maintenance? The maintenance costs for a used
car can go up exponentially; particularly if it has a timing belt
instead of a chain. With most new cars requiring _no_ significant
maintenance (aside from oil changes, rubber & radiator fluid at 50k),
until about 120k; the maint charges after 120k add up quickly.

scott

In article , wrote:
Have you factored in maintenance?

Yes.

The maintenance costs for a used
car can go up exponentially; particularly if it has a timing belt
instead of a chain.

Which is one *major* reason I bought the Saturn... g

However, given the scenario posed by Chris (buy new, drive it till it drops)
you're going to pay for a timing belt eventually anyway.

With most new cars requiring _no_ significant
maintenance (aside from oil changes, rubber & radiator fluid at 50k),
until about 120k; the maint charges after 120k add up quickly.

Do the math. You can pay for a lot of maintenance and repairs with the money
you save on the purchase price by buying a used car, in good condition, on
which someone else has already eaten the depreciation.

My secrets a
1) Buy used cars from new-car dealers -- the vast majority of new-car dealers
cherry-pick their trade-ins; the crap goes to the auto auction, and the good
ones go to the dealer's used-car lot. So far, I'm 5-for-5 with this approach.
2) Know the value of what you're buying, and don't pay a penny more for it. Be
prepared to walk away.
3) I keep my maintenance and repair costs down by doing most of the work
myself.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
Have you factored in maintenance?

Yes.

The maintenance costs for a used
car can go up exponentially; particularly if it has a timing belt
instead of a chain.

Which is one *major* reason I bought the Saturn... g

However, given the scenario posed by Chris (buy new, drive it till it drops)
you're going to pay for a timing belt eventually anyway.

With most new cars requiring _no_ significant
maintenance (aside from oil changes, rubber & radiator fluid at 50k),
until about 120k; the maint charges after 120k add up quickly.

Do the math. You can pay for a lot of maintenance and repairs with the money
you save on the purchase price by buying a used car, in good condition, on
which someone else has already eaten the depreciation.

My secrets a
1) Buy used cars from new-car dealers -- the vast majority of new-car dealers
cherry-pick their trade-ins; the crap goes to the auto auction, and the good
ones go to the dealer's used-car lot. So far, I'm 5-for-5 with this approach.
2) Know the value of what you're buying, and don't pay a penny more for it. Be
prepared to walk away.

That's a fine attitude to have. But if in the end you have to pay a
couple hundred more than you hoped, and you found the car you wanted,
you probably still have a good deal. Shopping for cars is a pain
because the salespeople seem to assume at the onset that you're an
idiot who hasn't a clue--and they probably make thousands (extra) by
working that way. I recently bought a used car from a dealer too,
"walked out" and got a phone call the next morning... Here around
Indianapolis, there are two companies that are trending to own almost
every used car dealership, and they seem to want to control the
pricing... Bad trend for the consumer.

Bill


3) I keep my maintenance and repair costs down by doing most of the work
myself.