But I do have opinions on some of these things. Such as the following:

1) Climate and weather are 2 very different things.

That's not an opinion - that is a fact.


2) The body of evidence supporting the prevailing opinion on global
warming is vast.

The body of DATA is vast, whether those data represent evidence is
questioned by some.


3) The body of evidence supporting the naysayers is quite thin.

True.


4) Man does not know enough to be 100% certain of anything regarding
climate and all the factors that affect it.

Agreed. We know that we don't know and we don't even know whether knowing is
unknowable.


5) Man knows a lot more than he did 10 years ago on the subject. And
it is enough to conclude there is a high probability that human
activities are raising the temperature of the earth.

Temperature are probably rising. Man has been active. So far all that can be
said is there is a correlation, not a consequence.


6) The news media, in particular Fox News, is the wrong forum to
debate the veracity of scientific claims.

* I submit that AGW is not a scientific claim. Not everything that uses
parts of the scientific method can legitimately be labeled "science."

* Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent poll),
but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by "opinion."



7) Ditto for polical forums.

8) The debate on the subject in scientific circles is about as over as
it can get. Compare to the theory of evolution, or special relativity.
Those theories are about as accepted in the scientific community as
any, and yet we still hear in the news about a few naysayers. Mostly
because they are newsworthy, not because of scientific merit. News
people cannot assess scientific merit any more than I can.

Nope. Darwin proposed three mechanisms for evolution: 1) Sexual selection,
2) Survival of the fittest, and 3) Doctrine of Use/Disuse. Two of the three
have been proven to be wrong. Special Relativity is now viewed as a step
between Newtonian mechanics and Quantum Physics, not a truth in itself.

You may be right in noting the debate may be over. We do not know, and
possibly cannot ever know, the effect of human activity on climate. Much
like not knowing whether life exists on another planet, that bit of
knowledge will have to wait until the science improves. In my view, making
decisions about GW are similar to planning a Washington reception for space
aliens ("shall we serve fish or sliced badger?").


9) The likely negative economic impact of letting the global warming
scenario unfold and doing nothing to alter it, is huge.

I disagree; dealing with the consequences of global warming are trivial
compared to trying to mitigate AGW. There are even benefits to GW such as
increased crop yields and diminution of many major diseases.


12) Most of the organized opposition to reducing global warming or
admitting it is real, etc, is from people that have a demonstrated
track record of saying *anything*, distoring *any* fact, to sway
public opinion. They are real good at it. If you look at what they
have to gain, it is transient political power and relatively short
term financial gain.

Hmm. I haven't seen THOSE emails...

In fact most of the recent agitation comes from debunking the AGW
proponents.

Fact is, the global warming bandwagon has been mortally wounded. Anyone
claiming AGW - or even just warming in general - in the future will have to
provide gold-plated evidence to bolster that view. The global warming
"scientists" have been found to be a rat-bag collection of scalawags,
cut-purses, rapscallions, nit-pickers, and atheletes of the tongue so bereft
of any credibility as to be unfit even for medical experimentation.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:19:07 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

How many nuke accidents which released radiation and killed people
have happened in the thousands of nuke years (yes, that many have been
around that long) that we've had power plants? ONE.

Number of deaths from the worst nuke accident in history: 56.

Compare to approximately two orders of magnitude more deaths _per year_
in
coal mining accidents (worldwide)...


From the Wiki on Chernobyl:
"56 direct deaths. 800,000 (est) suffered radiation exposure, which
may result in as many as 4,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of
those exposed, in addition to the approximately 100,000 fatal cancers
to be expected from all other causes in this population.[1]"

Disingenuous, at best. There were up to 500,000 people resettled and
likely
millions of domestic animals killed.

Granted, the Chernobyl (pure negligence on a faulty design) accident
was a disaster, but look at the billions of dollars of damage from
coal-fired acid rain. Look at the amount of toxic waste from the coal
furnaces (some not even ours, imported to the USA in Chinese drywall.)
Chernobyl was a one-time happening while the disaster that it coal is
continuing to this day. Why aren't the Chicken Littles of the world
doing more about that? Have you read about the unstoppable
underground coal mine fires? Talk about a nasty carbon footprint...

Something has been done about acid rain and many other varieties of
pollution. It's been done and continues to be done right here in the US.
We're not perfect, but we're a hell of a lot closer than those who could
have followed our example.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:19:07 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

How many nuke accidents which released radiation and killed people
have happened in the thousands of nuke years (yes, that many have been
around that long) that we've had power plants? ONE.

Number of deaths from the worst nuke accident in history: 56.

Compare to approximately two orders of magnitude more deaths _per year_
in
coal mining accidents (worldwide)...


From the Wiki on Chernobyl:
"56 direct deaths. 800,000 (est) suffered radiation exposure, which
may result in as many as 4,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of
those exposed, in addition to the approximately 100,000 fatal cancers
to be expected from all other causes in this population.[1]"

Disingenuous, at best. There were up to 500,000 people resettled and
likely
millions of domestic animals killed.

Granted, the Chernobyl (pure negligence on a faulty design) accident
was a disaster, but look at the billions of dollars of damage from
coal-fired acid rain. Look at the amount of toxic waste from the coal
furnaces (some not even ours, imported to the USA in Chinese drywall.)
Chernobyl was a one-time happening while the disaster that it coal is
continuing to this day. Why aren't the Chicken Littles of the world
doing more about that? Have you read about the unstoppable
underground coal mine fires? Talk about a nasty carbon footprint...


Lest I forget, underground peat fires burned unchecked prior to the first
coal mine fire.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news

But I do have opinions on some of these things. Such as the following:

1) Climate and weather are 2 very different things.

That's not an opinion - that is a fact.


2) The body of evidence supporting the prevailing opinion on global
warming is vast.

The body of DATA is vast, whether those data represent evidence is
questioned by some.


3) The body of evidence supporting the naysayers is quite thin.

True.


4) Man does not know enough to be 100% certain of anything regarding
climate and all the factors that affect it.

Agreed. We know that we don't know and we don't even know whether knowing
is unknowable.


5) Man knows a lot more than he did 10 years ago on the subject. And
it is enough to conclude there is a high probability that human
activities are raising the temperature of the earth.

Temperature are probably rising. Man has been active. So far all that can
be said is there is a correlation, not a consequence.

I think this can be accepted as Given. All organisms alter their environment
to some extent. Though humans do not constitute the largest biomass - IIRC,
that goes to microbes - our impact is magnified by our technology.

I'd like to see what would happen if ALL of the current researchers, etc
were told to go home and we'll pay a new crew to evaluate your work and a
second new crew to work on amelioration, if needed.

The lamenting and tearing of hair would be heard 'round the world!

This is ALL about MONEY.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:50:37 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Jan 27, 10:20*am, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/27/2010 09:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts of
power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

You underestimate the sun.

Average insolation for the earth is 250W/m^2. *Using arrays of mirrors
to focus heat it would take a reflective area 1kmx4km to generate 1GW of
power.

Chris

This is likely to spark a load of questions. There is a really cool
saying in Dutch which translates into "one fool can ask more questions
than a 1thousand wise men can answer."
Apply when needed, rinse and repeat. G

Let's apply it to Chris' comment, shall we?

---
"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 Jan 27, 4:03*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/27/2010 09:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts
of power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

You underestimate the sun.

Average insolation for the earth is 250W/m^2. *Using arrays of mirrors
to focus heat it would take a reflective area 1kmx4km to generate 1GW
of power.

Heh! Can you imagine what it costs to cover 4 sq km with grass seed, let
alone MIRRORS?

I have run the numbers. Allowing for conversion efficiency (70%), darkness
(12 hours), clouds (20%), and latitude (30°N), it would take a solar
collector the size of the Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply
electricity just for California (~50Gw). The only way to reduce the size of
the solar farm is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Now, polish that mirror.

Leaving aside the cost to construct, install, and maintain something
covering 3,000 sq km, the citizens in Los Angles would have to live in
perpetual darkness.

Which, when one thinks on it ....

They don't. That's the point.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:52:04 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:02:20 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

Oh, we also had hellish humidity and Tornados. I'm soaking up 43 and misty
rain in Beaverton.

I hope it wasn't YOU who passed 66

I passed 66 last year. Later this year I'll pass 67.

and 67,

Later this year I'll pass 67.

That's a lot of bowel movement.


taxing the business right
out of Oregon.

I've heard that two down south have already announced intent to leave. If
they were up here, the local morons would try to tax leaving!

sigh Yeah, they would.


Portland and Salem are bastions of Unions and
libtardness were the primary "carriers" for the passage of the two tax
bills. Freakin maroons!

Yep. But there is a good side. That Moron Bowler in Salem just allowed as
how it migh now be easier to get their hands on the kicker. I think people
Will be reminded that all of the votes had not been counted before he
started yapping about the Next money grab.

Just think, with all this practice, they'll be in D.C. soon and
screwing us on a larger, deeper level. They suckered the people once
again, putting off that little revolution which feels like it's
getting closer daily.


Beaverton is not so bad. In fact we get a fair number of refugees. Few years
back the school district hit a bad patch and went to the voters asking for a
three year measure. Two years in they declared themselves free of the
problem and they cut the final year. IIRC, they even refunded some.

That is not only laudable, it's unheard of in political circles.
Kudos.


Had that been Portland or Salem, they would have been asking for more money the day
before the election.

Or D.C. When are the people going to learn? The old "It's for the
CHILDREN!" worked _again_.


Beaverton cops also seem able to get their suspect with few, or no rounds
fired. Portland, OTOH, you don't want to be within a 12 block radius!

Good for Beaverton. That's as it should be. Portland should invest in
some bulk Front Sight (http://www.frontsight.com/, std disclaimer)
memberships and send their gun-happy cowboys there to learn how to
actually serve and protect. Cops need a sniper's motto to heart: One
Shot, One Kill. (If they _must_ shoot, it had better count.)

--
It is in his pleasure that a man really lives; it is from
his leisure that he constructs the true fabric of self.
-- Agnes Repplier

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


... it really depends and you need to look carefully. A number of years
ago, we bought a Ford Explorer, low miles used for significant savings
over
new. When I went looking for a pickup, all of the used ones I could find
had nearly 100k miles on them and were about $5k below brand new, 0 mile
sticker price. I figured that even for a vehicle that might last 200k or
more miles, paying 3/4 brand new price (or more) for a 1/2 used vehicle
didn't make any sense.


I agree with you conclusions above, but at least around here, that's not the
norm at all. There was a short time a couple of years ago when used trucks
were going for very close to the price of new, but that was very unusual,
and did not last long.

--

-Mike-

In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

I agree with you conclusions above, but at least around here, that's not the
norm at all. There was a short time a couple of years ago when used trucks
were going for very close to the price of new, but that was very unusual,
and did not last long.

That said, though.... trucks do seem to hold their value pretty well. I bought
my first house in 1983, just after an unpleasant divorce that left me pretty
well strapped for cash. The house itself was cheap, bought for a dollar under
a HUD program called "Urban Homesteading", but needed a fair amount of fixup
work, and I needed something to haul building materials with. I could not find
*any* pickup trucks of *any* age, in driveable condition, for less than a
thousand dollars (!!!). Wound up paying $175 for the worst used vehicle I've
ever owned, a 1967 Ford van, but it was the first thing I found that I could
afford. About a year later, I acquired a girlfriend who had a full-size Chevy
Silverado... we celebrate our 25th anniversary later this year. g

Read it & weep.

http://tinyurl.com/yah6j6m


Lew

HeyBub wrote:

The body of DATA is vast, whether those data represent evidence is
questioned by some.

3) The body of evidence supporting the naysayers is quite thin.

True.

Really True! See

http://tinyurl.com/ycgah5k

4) Man does not know enough to be 100% certain of anything regarding
climate and all the factors that affect it.

I'm pretty certain global warming is a good thing, see above...

Agreed. We know that we don't know and we don't even know whether knowing is
unknowable.

I knew that!

* Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent poll),
but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by "opinion."

Thats not fair! Fox news reports news, the rest are left wing
propaganda machines. How could anyone trust a left wing propaganda machine?

There are even benefits to GW such as
increased crop yields and diminution of many major diseases.

Yes, see above link for more exciting bennies!

Fact is, the global warming bandwagon has been mortally wounded. Anyone
claiming AGW - or even just warming in general - in the future will have to
provide gold-plated evidence to bolster that view. The global warming
"scientists" have been found to be a rat-bag collection of scalawags,
cut-purses, rapscallions, nit-pickers, and atheletes of the tongue so bereft
of any credibility as to be unfit even for medical experimentation.

Same with the anti-second hand smoke control freaks...

--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ==== Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:21:56 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

* Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent
poll), but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by
"opinion."

Thats not fair! Fox news reports news, the rest are left wing
propaganda machines. How could anyone trust a left wing propaganda
machine?

I *do* hope that was sarcasm :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:21:56 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

* Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent
poll), but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by
"opinion."
Thats not fair! Fox news reports news, the rest are left wing
propaganda machines. How could anyone trust a left wing propaganda
machine?

I *do* hope that was sarcasm :-).

What part of the left wing propaganda machine do you trust?
Most people don't bother watching it now that there is some choice.

--
Jack
"If You Can Read This, Thank A Teacher. If You Can Read It In
English, Thank A Veteran"
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein writes:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:21:56 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

* Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent
poll), but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by
"opinion."
Thats not fair! Fox news reports news, the rest are left wing
propaganda machines. How could anyone trust a left wing propaganda
machine?

I *do* hope that was sarcasm :-).

What part of the left wing propaganda machine do you trust?
Most people don't bother watching it now that there is some choice.


Most people? Cite please.

Even at 2m viewers, that's less than 1% of Americans who watch fox news.

Yawn.

scott

On 2/4/2010 10:47 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Most people? Cite please.

Even at 2m viewers, that's less than 1% of Americans who watch fox news.

Still more than twice the number who read any one NEWSpaper in the
country, including the most read:

Here's your cite for that, the NYT itself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/bu...t.html?_r=1&hp

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

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Jack Stein writes:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:21:56 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

* Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent
poll), but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by
"opinion."
Thats not fair! Fox news reports news, the rest are left wing
propaganda machines. How could anyone trust a left wing propaganda
machine?
I *do* hope that was sarcasm :-).

What part of the left wing propaganda machine do you trust?
Most people don't bother watching it now that there is some choice.


Most people? Cite please.

300 million people, most of them don't watch the left wing propaganda
spewed forth by the likes of ABC, CBS, MSNBC or CNN.

Anyway, just searching the news and found this from TV WEEK:
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/04/t...t_powerful.php
Roger Ailes
Titles: Chairman and CEO of Fox News, Fox Business Network, Fox
Television Station Group
Tenu Launched Fox News Channel in 1996
Rank last year: 1.
Why he was chosen: Fox News Channel is making money, money, money by
racking up rating$, rating$, rating$ day in, day out, year after year.
The network created in his image is consistently among the 10
most-watched channels in the cable world (second-place CNN is in the low
20s and third-place MSNBC seldom even makes the Top 30).

This was from 2008 and FOX has only gotten stronger since then, and
MSNBC and the other Obama mouth pieces have gotten weaker.

Even at 2m viewers, that's less than 1% of Americans who watch fox news.

According to this TV Week article, FOX news is killing the rest of the
Lame Stream Media. If only 2 million watch FOX news, even less are
watching the others.

Yawn.

--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ======= Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com