The Writing is on the Wall
Kurgan Gringioni
Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
By Timothy Gardner
Reuters
Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
Oregon's governor.
Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona have agreed to
develop a regional target for reducing greenhouse emissions in six
months, according a statement from Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.
During the next 18 months, the governors will devise a market-based
program, such as a load-based cap and trade program to reach the
target. The five states also have agreed to participate in a multi-
state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their
region.
The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative comes on the heels of
an agreement in the East called the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative.
"With the Western states you've got a huge part of the U.S. economy
that are beginning to regulate greenhouse gases," said Jeremiah
Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research
Group.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently passed the country's
toughest greenhouse emissions laws which aim to reduce the state's
economy-wide output of the gases by 25 percent by 2020.
Monday's agreement "sets the stage for a regional cap and trade
program, which will provide a powerful framework for developing a
national cap and trade program," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on
Monday. "This agreement shows the power of states to lead our nation
addressing climate change."
The other states in the Western pact have also passed greenhouse gas
reduction initiatives of their own. The regional pact would allow the
states to use market mechanisms more efficiently to reduce output of
the gases, said Baumann.
The United States initiated cap and trade programs on pollutants such
as acid rain components in the early 1990s.
In such markets for greenhouse gases, companies can offset their
emissions by investing in clean projects like solar and wind power, or
earn credits that they can sell for cutting their emissions at their
factories.
In 2005, the European Union formed a cap and trade program to meet its
countries' obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
Unlike developed countries that ratified Kyoto, the United States does
not regulate carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. President
George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first
term, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly leave rapidly
developing countries without emissions limits in its first phase.
Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and
transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national
greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann
said.
Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate
imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from
surrounding states outside of the agreement.
The seven states in the Eastern regional pact, which include New York
and Massachusetts, aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants
by 10 percent by 2019.
Tom Kunich
news:1172520735.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ain't politics wonderful. Sooner or later these states will actually elect
someone with an IQ above that of a parrot and then what? Will this elected
official then actually read scientific papers and figure out that NO ONE is
meeting the Kyoto protocols now and if they did it wouldn't make ANY
difference whatsoever?
Mike Jacoubowsky
> someone with an IQ above that of a parrot and then what? Will this elected
> official then actually read scientific papers and figure out that NO ONE
> is meeting the Kyoto protocols now and if they did it wouldn't make ANY
> difference whatsoever?
Absolutely not true. Even if the measures currently in place (and, according
to you, not being met) aren't enough to make a difference, they're at least
introducing people to the idea that we may have to make some serious changes
down the road.
If it turns out that we can't stop or change what's happening, we are at
least becoming more aware of what's going on, and will better be able to
adapt as required. That's the worst-case scenario. The best situation would
be learning what it might take to actually mitigate the climate changes.
It is difficult to come up with a case that we're better off by burying our
heads in the sand, even if it turns out in the end that we're powerless to
prevent global warming.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Tom Kunich
news:ZbJEh.3899$re4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> Ain't politics wonderful. Sooner or later these states will actually
>> elect someone with an IQ above that of a parrot and then what? Will this
>> elected official then actually read scientific papers and figure out that
>> NO ONE is meeting the Kyoto protocols now and if they did it wouldn't
>> make ANY difference whatsoever?
>
> Absolutely not true.
Mike, what we're seeing is a global climate variation caused by solar
cycles. CO2 has essentially no effect on this cycle.
The really weird thing about this is that the PAPERS that compose the data
for IPCC almost all show that and yet the "executive summary" makes false
and misleading claims. Now the latest IPCC report hasn't been released
because they're CHANGING THE PAPERS TO REFLECT THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!
CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker - there
is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
heating.
The world is going nuts around us and I'd sure like to know why. We've
always been told that if you want to know who is controlling everything
follow the money - well - who is pouring money into the global warming
nonsense?
Here's the bottom line - we are in an interglacial period and we can expect
climate variations like what we've been seeing. Studies on the previous 4
interglacial periods demonstrate MORE heating than we've seen in this one.
Explain this - the Senate voted 97 to nothing AGAINST the Kyoto Protocols.
What do you know that they didn't?
Steve Freides
news:1172520735.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>
> By Timothy Gardner
> Reuters
> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
-snip-
It is customary, and polite, to start the subject of off-topic postings
with "OT:"
-S-
Mike Jacoubowsky
> What do you know that they didn't?
Hmm. Good point. That's the same senate that took at face value only the
part of the intelligence information that said Iraq had WMDs. Didn't bother
to look any further.
amit....@gmail.com
> Mike, what we're seeing is a global climate variation caused by solar
> cycles. CO2 has essentially no effect on this cycle.
dumbass,
put your money where your mouth is.
let's agree to a standard which will prove or disprove your statement,
and i will bet you $500 that your statement is wrong.
Phil Holman
"Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
news:54hjvtF...@mid.individual.net...
to pontificate about fragrance and redolence.
Phil H
Phil Holman
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change. Anyone who says this is
a moral issue and not a political one (Al Gore when winning his part of
an Oscar) is either a liar or an idiot. Having said that, I'll go with a
reduction in CO2 emissions if it means reducing our dependence on oil.
Yeh well, you can see how the politics come into play.
Phil H
Tom Kunich
>> Explain this - the Senate voted 97 to nothing AGAINST the Kyoto
>> Protocols. What do you know that they didn't?
>
> Hmm. Good point. That's the same senate that took at face value only the
> part of the intelligence information that said Iraq had WMDs. Didn't
> bother to look any further.
Yeah, those people with actual access to the intelligence are so much more
stupid than those of us who haven't.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,
CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe
Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D,
WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,
NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
If there's one thing we can count on, it's that people who know the least
about what's going on are likely to be the loudest about how everyone else
should have known better.
amit....@gmail.com
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6_MEh.1002$P47...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...>> Explain this - the Senate voted 97 to nothing AGAINST the Kyoto
> >> Protocols. What do you know that they didn't?
>
> > Hmm. Good point. That's the same senate that took at face value only
> > the part of the intelligence information that said Iraq had WMDs.
> > Didn't bother to look any further.
>
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >www.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> I'm with Tom on this one. There are too many reputable scientists who
> doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change.
dumbass,
don't be vague. what do you mean by "there are too many reputable
scientists who doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change" ?
either it has a role or it doesn't. do you mean there are reputable
scientists that believe CO2 doesn't radiatively force the atmosphere ?
Phil Holman
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172548292.3...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
statement.
Phil H
amit....@gmail.com
> <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
dumbass,
be specific. for example i don't consider tim ball to be a scientist.
Phil Holman
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172550505.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
scheme and change over the last few decades is too short a period to
predict long term trends. Here's a start......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Phil H
William Asher
news:o6KdnRBPKY-DLX7Y...@comcast.com:
<snip>
>
> I'm with Tom on this one. There are too many reputable scientists who
> doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change. Anyone who says this
> is a moral issue and not a political one (Al Gore when winning his
> part of an Oscar) is either a liar or an idiot. Having said that, I'll
> go with a reduction in CO2 emissions if it means reducing our
> dependence on oil. Yeh well, you can see how the politics come into
> play.
This isn't like plate tectonics, where the old guard dug in their heels
and made life hell for Dietz and Hess even though what they proposed was
a blindingly obvious truth. The "reputable scientists" who doubt the
role of CO2 in climate are more like Pete Duesberg, who, against the
mass of evidence arrayed against him, is still to this day convinced
AIDS is caused by an immune response to anal sex and amyl nitrate and
not HIV.
--
Bill Asher
Phil Holman
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172551733....@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Phil H
Ryan Fisher
> doubt the role that CO2 plays in climate change. Anyone who says this is a
> moral issue and not a political one (Al Gore when winning his part of an
> Oscar) is either a liar or an idiot. Having said that, I'll go with a
> reduction in CO2 emissions if it means reducing our dependence on oil. Yeh
> well, you can see how the politics come into play.
>
speaking of Gore,
Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth"
Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
amit....@gmail.com
> <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172551733....@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:38 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> >> <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1172548292.3...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> On Feb
> >> 26, 8:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Mike, what we're seeing is a global climate variation caused by
> >> >> solar
> >> >> cycles. CO2 has essentially no effect on this cycle.
>
> >> > dumbass,
>
> >> > put your money where your mouth is.
>
> >> > let's agree to a standard which will prove or disprove your
> >> > statement,
> >> > and i will bet you $500 that your statement is wrong.
>
> >> How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
> >> statement.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > be specific. for example i don't consider tim ball to be a scientist.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
>
dumbass,
lindzen has a theory that rising CO2 levels would trigger a negative
feedback on temperature. but even he wouldn't agree with tom that the
recent change change in solar forcing is greater than the recent
change in CO2 forcing.
Stu Fleming
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.html
>
> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>
> By Timothy Gardner
> Reuters
> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
> regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
> linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
> Oregon's governor.
Unconstitional.
Phil Holman
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172553710....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
suggesting it should be the effect of CO2 levels on long term climate
change.
Phil H
Phil Holman
"William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98E3D8066...@130.133.1.4...
change? Oh I get it, you present questionable science in an unrelated
matter as part of your (flawed) argument. You can't even claim guilt by
association.
Phil H
William Asher
<snip>
> Sounds like a need to establish a basis for the disagreement. I'm
> suggesting it should be the effect of CO2 levels on long term climate
> change.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/
Don't noboday say "Duesberg."
--
Bill Asher
Phil Holman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Phil H
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
> statement.
Out of how many thousand?
In my field (which is much smaller than all the fields
that go into global climate studies), I think I could dig
up 10-20 names of people who dissent from the majority
position on a number of issues (like the expansion of the
universe). Some of them are very eminent smart people.
It doesn't mean there is any validity to their position.
It means rather that even people whose job it is to
remorselessly evaluate the evidence can paint themselves
into an intellectual corner.
Ben
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
>
> CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker - there
> is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
> reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
> heating.
This is factually incorrect. Early experiments
(Angstrom in 1900) led people to believe that CO2
absorption (not reflection) bands were saturated in
the atmospheric column. The problem is that the
interpretation extrapolates from a small absorbing
column at room temperature and pressure; but much
of the CO2 in the atmosphere is high up, colder and
lower temperature. In the 1950s, experiments and
theoretical calculations found that the CO2 absorption
in the atmosphere is not saturated; in the 1960s
the mechanism for possible CO2 effects became acceptable;
and in the 1970s people started to believe that there
was evidence for the effect in the historical record.
Please see:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
So any reference that tells you that atmospheric CO2
is saturated and increasing concentration has no
forcing effect is either decades out of date or
deliberately misleading.
Ben
Tom Kunich
news:SJudne4tH88dIH7Y...@comcast.com...
>> scientists that believe CO2 doesn't radiatively force the atmosphere ?
> No, I mean that some believe CO2 is not a big player in the overall scheme
> and change over the last few decades is too short a period to predict long
> term trends. Here's a start......
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
This is precisely WHY you're seeing so many "scientists" jumping on the
bandwagon for global warming. The hysteria is being orchestrated
specifically to hand increasing power to governments. And of course that
seems like a good idea to all good little socialists.
Robert Chung
Tom Kunich
news:gaadnSMxj_IAfH7Y...@comcast.com...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Ah yes, the list of subjects for lynching by the leftists weirdos.
Tom Kunich
news:1172566138....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 6:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker -
>> there
>> is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
>> reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
>> heating.
>
> This is factually incorrect. Early experiments
> (Angstrom in 1900) led people to believe that CO2
> absorption (not reflection) bands were saturated in
> the atmospheric column. The problem is that the
> interpretation extrapolates from a small absorbing
> column at room temperature and pressure; but much
> of the CO2 in the atmosphere is high up, colder and
> lower temperature.
Ahem, maybe you'd better explain that to all of the plants in this world.
ilan
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR200...
>
> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>
> By Timothy Gardner
> Reuters
> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
> regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
> linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
> Oregon's governor.
>
> develop a regional target for reducing greenhouse emissions in six
> months, according a statement from Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.
>
> During the next 18 months, the governors will devise a market-based
> program, such as a load-based cap and trade program to reach the
> target. The five states also have agreed to participate in a multi-
> state registry to track and manage greenhouse gas emissions in their
> region.
>
> The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative comes on the heels of
> an agreement in the East called the Regional Greenhouse Gas
> Initiative.
>
> "With the Western states you've got a huge part of the U.S. economy
> that are beginning to regulate greenhouse gases," said Jeremiah
> Baumann, an advocate with the Oregon State Public Interest Research
> Group.
>
> California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently passed the country's
> toughest greenhouse emissions laws which aim to reduce the state's
> economy-wide output of the gases by 25 percent by 2020.
>
> Monday's agreement "sets the stage for a regional cap and trade
> program, which will provide a powerful framework for developing a
> national cap and trade program," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on
> Monday. "This agreement shows the power of states to lead our nation
> addressing climate change."
>
> The other states in the Western pact have also passed greenhouse gas
> reduction initiatives of their own. The regional pact would allow the
> states to use market mechanisms more efficiently to reduce output of
> the gases, said Baumann.
>
> The United States initiated cap and trade programs on pollutants such
> as acid rain components in the early 1990s.
>
> In such markets for greenhouse gases, companies can offset their
> emissions by investing in clean projects like solar and wind power, or
> earn credits that they can sell for cutting their emissions at their
> factories.
>
> In 2005, the European Union formed a cap and trade program to meet its
> countries' obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
>
> Unlike developed countries that ratified Kyoto, the United States does
> not regulate carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. President
> George W. Bush withdrew from the international pact early in his first
> term, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly leave rapidly
> developing countries without emissions limits in its first phase.
>
> Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and
> transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national
> greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann
> said.
>
> Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate
> imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from
> surrounding states outside of the agreement.
>
> The seven states in the Eastern regional pact, which include New York
> and Massachusetts, aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants
> by 10 percent by 2019.
The weather is a perfect tool for scientists who use the media to get
attention. I pointed out
a good example with the hurricane hysteria of 2005:
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/hurricane2.html
I just heard on the news today that there was the strongest Atlantic
hurricane in history, and that this year had a record number of
powerful hurricanes. In my constant quest to understand media
distortion, I immediately set out to understand what the hidden trick
was behind this alarming turn of events in the world climate.
Here is my conclusion: These hurricanes are classed according to their
wind speed which reaches its highest numbers when the hurricanes are
out in the ocean. But how do you measure 200+ kph winds out in the
open sea? As near as I can figure, you can't do it safely by boat or
airplane, so the only good way of tracking a hurricane is from a
satellite. Since the first weather satellites were launched 45 years
ago, this significantly reduces the period of observation of ocean
hurricanes. A further minute's research reveals that a complete system
of weather satellites was first established in 1975 with the GOES
project. In other words, recorded data on Atlantic hurricanes only
goes back 30 years. Since other climatic effects can have a period
extending decades, I conclude that there is insufficient historical
data do indicate a permanent change in global climate.
As a final remark, note that 30 years of data should be enough to
correlate hurricane speed on land with their maximum force over the
ocean which could therefore give realistic extrapolations as to the
maximum wind speed of hurricanes over the ocean for the recorded
period before satellite data. This would give a clearer understanding
of whether this year's hurricanes are truly exceptional.
-ilan
Back to ilanpi
Such hysteria caused much human suffering including the irrational
exodus from Houston, TX.
Curtis L. Russell
>But how do you measure 200+ kph winds out in the
>open sea? As near as I can figure, you can't do it safely by boat or
>airplane, so the only good way of tracking a hurricane is from a
>satellite.
They drop disposable tracking devices and pick up the telemetry by the
planes that do the drop, which is relayed back to the base. They'll
have a bunch of them (devices, not planes) picking up data during the
drop and in the sea, all getting a complete, more or less, picture of
what's happening.
OTOH, it is primarily supplementing the big picture picked up by the
satellites.
You need to watch the weather channel more. Lots of great pictures of
stuff I never plan to do without some gun pointed at the back of my
head. But its great someone else will and take pictures at the same
time...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Tom Kunich
news:54j30dF...@mid.individual.net...
And you certainly would know about doctoring data now wouldn't you?
Bob Schwartz
> On Feb 26, 6:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> CO2 composes only 2-3% of the greenhouse gases and here's the kicker - there
>> is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have closed off the
>> reflection window of CO2 - that means that more CO2 doesn't cause more
>> heating.
>
> This is factually incorrect.
Of course it is. I'm so proud of him.
Bob Schwartz
Robert Chung
> And you certainly would know about doctoring data now wouldn't you?
A non-negligible part of the data stuff I do is what might be called
forensic data analysis.
amit....@gmail.com
dumbass,
since the atmosphere is in a state near balance it is possible to
infer wind speeds from pressure and temperature data, two things which
are relatively easy to measure.
> A further minute's research reveals that a complete system
> of weather satellites was first established in 1975 with the GOES
> project. In other words, recorded data on Atlantic hurricanes only
> goes back 30 years. Since other climatic effects can have a period
> extending decades, I conclude that there is insufficient historical
> data do indicate a permanent change in global climate.
Are you talking about storms or climate change in general ? There is
proxy data for land and ocean temperatures and CO2 going back
thousands of years. I have seen proxy data for paleoclimate storms as
well, but that might not be as robust.
But we can use the proxy data to simulate past climates and compare
that resulting simulation to the present climate.
Lindzen for example accepts global temperature change and I don't
think he would dispute the relative strength of CO2 forcing and solar
variation, two things which are known. His iris effect paper takes on
a less well understood part of the system. He doesn't dispute well
established results like Kunich is doing.
Lindzen and some of these others also have a problem with "alarmists",
but that's a strawman. No mainstream scientist is attributing a single
event to global warming eg: hurricane Katrina, though that angle IS
played up in the media.
Donald Munro
> You need to watch the weather channel more. Lots of great pictures of
> stuff I never plan to do without some gun pointed at the back of my
> head. But its great someone else will and take pictures at the same
> time...
They used to have some hot chicks too, if I recall correctly. The type you
probably wouldn't mind to have warming your globe.
Tom Kunich
When did you analyze Lindzen's data?
Robert Chung
May 2006.
Tom Kunich
Ahh, good then perhaps you can explain what this data was, how it pertained
to the present conversation and how it was "doctored". And of course you do
realize that you can be held liable for your statements?
Robert Chung
> Ahh, good then perhaps you can explain what this data was, how it
> pertained to the present conversation and how it was "doctored". And
> of course you do realize that you can be held liable for your
> statements?
I already explained in "The Surge" thread. I showed Lindzen's plot, where he
said he'd gotten the data, and the URLs both for the data and the document
from which the plot came. I gave the URLs so anyone could download the
document and the data and see for themselves. You took the bait and said
you'd examined the data so you should have been able to verify that the data
don't match his plot. So either he doctored the data, or he mislead his
audience about the data he was using. Neither of those two alternatives is
good.
Mike Jacoubowsky
destroyed. By us. We just didn't bother to figure it out. That makes us look
pretty stupid, doesn't it? We won, in the sense that we accomplished our
primary objective (since we were far more concerned about WMDs than anything
Saddam might have done to his people, sorry if you think otherwise).
The interesting thing about history is that it makes people we didn't care
for that much, such as Bush Sr., look not so bad, and in fact, pretty darned
smart, in hindsight. Hate it when that happens.
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
excel_...@hotmail.com
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR200...
>
> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>
doesn't affect his view, or his 'Where the fuck are we?' Yacht race or
any of his rich contributors. Anyone interested in enviro politics
should read the book on Cape Wind, really amazing the total BS rich
people come up with for not building a Wind Farm.
http://www.amazon.com/Cape-Wind-Celebrity-Politics-Nantucket/dp/1586483978/ref=cm_cd_t_pb_bn/002-6425091-1349667
CH
Bill C
Let's see, your a working professional in the subject, you cited solid
sources to back your argument, the general argument matches the
overwhelming scientific concensus; So YOU are wrong.
Love the logic.
Bill C
Bill C
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>
> news:gaadnSMxj_IAfH7Y...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
> Ah yes, the list of subjects for lynching by the leftists weirdos.
Please cite sources (Names, dates, convictions,etc...)for any
scientist involved in cliamatology that has been lynched by leftists
in a democracy. The world wants to know.
Bill C
Phil Holman
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1172565434.4...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
>> How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
>> statement.
>
> Out of how many thousand?
So how many do you need? Are we going to do the "reality is subject to a
majority vote" sketch again.
>
> In my field (which is much smaller than all the fields
> that go into global climate studies), I think I could dig
> up 10-20 names of people who dissent from the majority
> position on a number of issues (like the expansion of the
> universe).
>Some of them are very eminent smart people.
> It doesn't mean there is any validity to their position.
> It means rather that even people whose job it is to
> remorselessly evaluate the evidence can paint themselves
> into an intellectual corner.
>
You know as well as I do there are instances where the majority position
has been wrong. A lower probability but still a possibility. Are you
basing your position on your own knowledge of the subject or are you
just siding with the majority?
Phil H
Phil Holman
"Bill C" <trito...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1172623447.1...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Metaphorically speaking of course but there have been a few scientists
who have fallen from grace because of their beliefs on climate
change/global warming. David Bellamy is one I can think of without
having to look it up although he did make a major faux pas on polar ice
melt (which he acknowledged).
Phil H
Jim Flom
I'm no longer surprised by how easy it is to dig a little bit and find how
little credibility the opposing scientists actually have. It's not hard to
learn whose payroll the scientists are on, or which spokespersons are on
what think tanks (American Enterprise Institute anyone?), think tanks funded
by the likes of Exxon/Mobil, or what Senate subcommittee feeding the Bush
dogma team, etc. I would love to believe climate change is a fantasy. I
wish it were. The number of credible scientists opposing human causes to
climate change are shrinking faster than... uh, the polar ice caps.
JF
Phil Holman
"Jim Flom" <jim.flo...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:La5Fh.1123$IE4.541@edtnps82...
why is that? Are they getting smarter as a result of new data?
Phil H
Bill C
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Were speaking metaphorically. Given Tom's past lynching claims I'm not
sure he is.
As far as dissent goes. I'm not sure that's allowewd in US academic
circles.
Bill C
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1172565434.4...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
> >> How about 20 appropriately qualified scientists who agree with Tom's
> >> statement.
>
> > Out of how many thousand?
>
> So how many do you need? Are we going to do the "reality is subject to a
> majority vote" sketch again.
I need to see well-supported arguments that can attract
a significant number of people who have thought seriously
about the issue. I can't give you a percentage for
"significant" but it clearly has to be more than ~1%.
The point is that you can find 20 people with PhDs to
support just about any crazy idea, so your original
offer to come up with 20 people proves nothing.
> > In my field (which is much smaller than all the fields
> > that go into global climate studies), I think I could dig
> > up 10-20 names of people who dissent from the majority
> > position on a number of issues (like the expansion of the
> > universe).
> >Some of them are very eminent smart people.
> > It doesn't mean there is any validity to their position.
> > It means rather that even people whose job it is to
> > remorselessly evaluate the evidence can paint themselves
> > into an intellectual corner.
>
> You know as well as I do there are instances where the majority position
> has been wrong. A lower probability but still a possibility. Are you
> basing your position on your own knowledge of the subject or are you
> just siding with the majority?
The thing is, people read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (or absorb the ideas, which have permeated
our culture) and they think that fields commonly undergo
paradigm shifts and the brave minority overthrows the
herd-thinking majority. Like Wegener and continental
drift or Semmelweis and the importance of sterilization
in preventing infection, or the rise of early 20th century
modern physics. It happens, as in the cases I mentioned
(though it should be noted that there were good reasons
why people didn't believe Wegener.) But the fable of
the herd majority is rarely completely accurate.
In the case of global climate change, what you have
is rather the opposite time-sequence. At first, many
people didn't believe the mechanisms. Then they were
skeptical about the observations. (See for example the
history of CO2 science I posted earlier,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm )
In 1988, a lot of the relevant people said we didn't
have enough evidence yet. By now, most of those people
have been convinced. What we see is the process by which
an idea moves from conjecture to consensus. In order to
do this it has to convince a large number of people
whose job it is to be skeptical. At this point it is
rare for there to be a 180 degree turn in favor of
the holdouts. In fact, the holdouts are usually not
brave dissenters introducing a new idea, but the last
of the old guard who just can't admit that somebody
else was right.
I don't work on climate studies, but if you want to
have any kind of non-Kunichian dialogue about it, you
can start by backing up positions with facts rather than
implying that I'm "just siding with the majority."
Ben
Steven L. Sheffield
Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172520735.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR20070226007
>> 33.html
>>
>> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>>
>> By Timothy Gardner
>> Reuters
>> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
>
> -snip-
>
> It is customary, and polite, to start the subject of off-topic postings
> with "OT:"
In this group, "OT:" stands for ON-topic, not OFF-topic.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
Tom Kunich
Maybe you missed the fact that I did examine the data and wasn't impressed
by your call of doctoring since we aren't sure that was precisely the data
set he used. You sniveled about how easily I filtered the data without ever
bothering to actually look at it yourself.
You're really quick to shout "he doctored it" but my guess is that you'll
discount any possible mistakes he might have made in noting his data set.
There are some six million variables involved in the general circulation
models. It is a chaotic system which means that in order to know anything at
all about the results you have to know every one of those variables with
great accuracy. Yet most of these variables are simply guessed at. We do not
even begin to understand what causes cloud cover let alone precipitation
levels. And all of these are of extreme importance if you are trying to
guess climatic patterns for more than a couple of days ahead.
Pretending that the predictions of these models has anything at all to do
with reality is precisely what is wrong with this subject. What we do know
is that the climatic variability FAR exceeds any weather forcing from a
meager addition of CO2. Did you know that we don't even have an accurate
number for the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere? The guesses cover a
three magnitude range.
Or maybe you can back up that dumbshit who thinks that CO2 is in the upper
atmosphere. Apparently no one ever taught him primary chemistry.
Tom Kunich
news:cw1Fh.7151$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Mike, I suggest you actually read the Duelfer Report
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html before commenting on it.
Tom Kunich
> little credibility the opposing scientists actually have. It's not hard
> to learn whose payroll the scientists are on, or which spokespersons are
> on what think tanks (American Enterprise Institute anyone?), think tanks
> funded by the likes of Exxon/Mobil, or what Senate subcommittee feeding
> the Bush dogma team, etc. I would love to believe climate change is a
> fantasy. I wish it were. The number of credible scientists opposing
> human causes to climate change are shrinking faster than... uh, the polar
> ice caps.
And I'm certainly no longer surprised to see someone saying that anyone that
is funded by business is obviously corrupt but those people funded by
Greenpeace are fearless souls of complete honesty and distinction.
Why you didn't even break a sweat denigrating people like Robert C. Balling,
Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of
geography at Arizona State University, Chris de Freitas, Associate
Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science,
University of Auckland, David Deming, geology professor at the University of
Oklahoma and Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical
Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia.
But of course since your own credentials are above reproach you would be the
best judge of these people.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> destroyed. By us. We just didn't bother to figure it out. That makes us
>> look pretty stupid, doesn't it? We won, in the sense that we accomplished
>> our primary objective (since we were far more concerned about WMDs than
>> anything Saddam might have done to his people, sorry if you think
>> otherwise).
>>
>> The interesting thing about history is that it makes people we didn't
>> care for that much, such as Bush Sr., look not so bad, and in fact,
>> pretty darned smart, in hindsight. Hate it when that happens.
>
> Mike, I suggest you actually read the Duelfer Report
> http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html before commenting on it.
Are we talking about the same Mr. Duelfer? The one who, on March 30, 2004,
had this to say-
"The ISG continues to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many sites have
been visited where intelligence reports before the war indicated there could
be weapons. The ISG has investigated hundreds of sites to date. Moreover,
we regularly receive reports, some quite intriguing and credible, about
concealed caches. We continue to investigate these reports about WMD
materials and weapons being buried or hidden across Iraq."
So please, tell me one thing, just one, that's incorrect in what I said. And
please, tell me just what exactly Mr. Duelfer has unearthed in the PAST
THREE YEARS that he alluded to in the quoted paragraph above.
It's 2007 now. Not 2004. Not 2001. Not 1983 or 1987 or 1991 either. As it's
now 2007, we have the luxury of looking back and recognizing the many
mistakes that were made, by many different administrations. Lest you think
I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, I think one of the biggest mistakes was that
the Clinton administration didn't strongly back up the demands for weapons
inspectors to have unfettered access. Had Clinton, for example, made it
clear through relatively-minor military action (taking out a military
target) each time Saddam refused to comply with the various rules &
sanctions, my guess is that things wouldn't have come to the point they
have.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Raptor
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.html
>>
>> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>>
>> By Timothy Gardner
>> Reuters
>> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
>>
>> regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
>> linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
>> Oregon's governor.
>
Like Shrub gives a shit about the Constitution.
--
Lynn Wallace
If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.
Tom Kunich
news:es33t7$pus$3...@news.xmission.com...
> Stu Fleming wrote:
>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.html
>>>
>>> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>>>
>>> By Timothy Gardner
>>> Reuters
>>> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
>>>
>>> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
>>> regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
>>> linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
>>> Oregon's governor.
>>
>> Unconstitional.
>
> Like Shrub gives a shit about the Constitution.
I'd be willing to bet that you've never actually read the Constitution
yourself.
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
Tom, you make a big deal out of "read the report" but I don't think you have. You
make claims about it that are not suppoerted by what is actually in the report.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Jim Flom
>>
> Hi Jim,
> why is that? Are they getting smarter as a result of new data?
Worked for me.
Robert Chung
> Maybe you missed the fact that I did examine the data and wasn't
> impressed by your call of doctoring since we aren't sure that was
> precisely the data set he used.
He cited the Hadley Centre/UEA data for NH temperature anomalies from
1960-2005. The only publicly available data from the Hadley Centre/UEA in
May 2006 of NH temperature anomalies were the data I gave the URL for. If
Lindzen was using non-standard data, then he should have mentioned it and
explained why. He did neither.
So you're saying he may not have doctored the data -- he may only have been
using a mysterious data set that was inconsistent with any publicly
available data at the website he was citing and was so sloppy in his work
that he forgot to mention it. Okay. I can live with that. I stand corrected.
Jim Flom
news:O06Fh.7419$Jl....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jim Flom" <jim.flo...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:La5Fh.1123$IE4.541@edtnps82...
>>
>> I'm no longer surprised by how easy it is to dig a little bit and find
>> how little credibility the opposing scientists actually have. It's not
>> hard to learn whose payroll the scientists are on, or which spokespersons
>> are on what think tanks (American Enterprise Institute anyone?), think
>> tanks funded by the likes of Exxon/Mobil, or what Senate subcommittee
>> feeding the Bush dogma team, etc. I would love to believe climate change
>> is a fantasy. I wish it were. The number of credible scientists
>> opposing human causes to climate change are shrinking faster than... uh,
>> the polar ice caps.
>
> And I'm certainly no longer surprised to see someone saying that anyone
> that is funded by business is obviously corrupt but those people funded by
> Greenpeace are fearless souls of complete honesty and distinction.
I don't recall mentioning Greenpeace, Tom.
> Why you didn't even break a sweat denigrating people like Robert C.
> Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate
> professor of geography at Arizona State University, Chris de Freitas,
> Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental
> Science, University of Auckland, David Deming, geology professor at the
> University of Oklahoma and Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine
> Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia.
I don't recall naming anybody either.
Balling?
In Balling and Sen Roy (2005) Robert C. Balling writes: "There is
substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in recent
decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other global-scale
feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water vapor, emerge as
potential explanations for the recent residual warming found in all
latitudinal bands."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Balling%2C_Jr.
I'll give you Chris de Freitas.
I'll give you David Deming, too, in the interest of fair play, since I don't
have anything to the contrary about him, and despite your not offering
anything definitive.
As far as Robert M. Carter goes, he might be credible, but it doesn't help
his credibility when he says on his website that he "receives no research
funding [sic] from special interest organisations such as environmental
groups, energy companies or government departments."; however, he has
written articles on global warming for Tech Central Station, which received
63% of its income in 2003 from ExxonMobil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
So I'll grant you two of four, see your two (heck I'll even see your four)
and raise you the hundreds of scientists representing the IPCC. And that's
just one body.
When even those who politically oppose constraints on the oil industry, like
Bush, or Prime Minister Stephen Harper up here, are forced to acknowledge
the issue, that's got to tell you something.
> But of course since your own credentials are above reproach you would be
> the best judge of these people.
Thanks for noticing.
JF
Donald Munro
> Are we talking about the same Mr. Duelfer? The one who, on March 30, 2004,
> had this to say-
Bear in mind he may have said something completely different in the KAU
(Kunich Alternate Universe).
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Maybe you missed the fact that I did examine the data and wasn't
>> impressed by your call of doctoring since we aren't sure that was
>> precisely the data set he used.
>
> He cited the Hadley Centre/UEA data for NH temperature anomalies from
> 1960-2005. The only publicly available data from the Hadley Centre/UEA in
> May 2006 of NH temperature anomalies were the data I gave the URL for. If
> Lindzen was using non-standard data, then he should have mentioned it and
> explained why. He did neither.
Ahem, there was a northern hemisphere, a southern hemisphere and a combined
data set. As it was I tried them all and none of them matched his final
three years. But that STILL doesn't mean he wasn't mistaken about the DATA
set and not doctoring it.
> So you're saying he may not have doctored the data -- he may only have
> been using a mysterious data set that was inconsistent with any publicly
> available data at the website he was citing and was so sloppy in his work
> that he forgot to mention it. Okay. I can live with that. I stand
> corrected.
I said at that point that using that data set and the particular filter gave
a curve that matched his results. Of course all it would have taken was a
ten second installation of the filter in Excel but I'm sure that you're not
used to having your proclaimations questioned. And another interesting thing
that I noted and you never bothered to comment on - that 6 point polynomial
filter gave results that matched graphs in the IPCC papers leading me to
believe that they simply did their data analysis with Excel as well.
As for "sloppy". You really are pretensious if you believe that printing
that makes you look anything other than a twit. How many papers are
retracted each year because of errors by assistants? Here's a question - how
many data sets of world temperatures are there? And how many variations of
each set are there? And how are they corrected for the 3/4ths of the globe
covered in water where there are no temperature records?
Tom Kunich
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:O06Fh.7419$Jl....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> that is funded by business is obviously corrupt but those people funded
>> by Greenpeace are fearless souls of complete honesty and distinction.
>
> I don't recall mentioning Greenpeace, Tom.
Of course not, but then you really don't have any idea where the data is
actually coming from do you?
>> Why you didn't even break a sweat denigrating people like Robert C.
>> Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate
>> professor of geography at Arizona State University, Chris de Freitas,
>> Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental
>> Science, University of Auckland, David Deming, geology professor at the
>> University of Oklahoma and Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine
>> Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia.
>
> I don't recall naming anybody either.
No, just that no REAL(tm) scientist would think of criticizing global
warming.
> Balling?
> In Balling and Sen Roy (2005) Robert C. Balling writes: "There is
> substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in
> recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other
> global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water
> vapor, emerge as potential explanations for the recent residual warming
> found in all latitudinal bands."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Balling%2C_Jr.
I wonder if you understand "or some other global-scale feedback" means?
> As far as Robert M. Carter goes, he might be credible, but it doesn't help
> his credibility when he says on his website that he "receives no research
> funding [sic] from special interest organisations such as environmental
> groups, energy companies or government departments."; however, he has
> written articles on global warming for Tech Central Station, which
> received 63% of its income in 2003 from ExxonMobil.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
So you're saying that because he's funded by an oil company he is
automatically crooked. Good call from someone that doesn't have any problem
with the fact that the only research papers that found bicycle helmets to
increase safety were funded by the helmet manufacturers.
Tom Kunich
>
> I said at that point that using that data set and the particular filter
> gave a curve that matched his results. Of course all it would have taken
> was a ten second installation of the filter in Excel but I'm sure that
> you're not used to having your proclaimations questioned. And another
> interesting thing that I noted and you never bothered to comment on - that
> 6 point polynomial filter gave results that matched graphs in the IPCC
> papers leading me to believe that they simply did their data analysis with
> Excel as well.
Thinking about this it occurred to me that if he had used the filter and
plotted the latest temperatures in the set AS A BARGRAPH, he would have
ended up with exactly the graph that he had. I think that it was possible to
mix the data set as a bar graph and the filtered data as a bar graph and get
the results he showed.
Raptor
You must have some extra laying around then.
Jim Flom
>
> automatically crooked. Good call from someone that doesn't have any
> problem with the fact that the only research papers that found bicycle
> helmets to increase safety were funded by the helmet manufacturers.
Thomas, I gave you all four, remember? That's your four in the face of
hundreds. You can believe what you want to believe, and as I said, I truly
truly truly hope you're right. Personally, I believe you and your four --
really, three -- scientists are mistaken. Now, let's look at the
implications for my lifestyle since I have enough confidence in the IPCC
report, with its hundreds of contributors from around the world, which I
have read (have you?) to take it seriously. A soil scientist friend who has
quietly been contributing to the reports for years takes it seriously, too.
What does it mean for me in practical terms? It boils down to more energy
efficient light bulbs, a push mower, and riding my bike more, plus a few
others. So I save a few hundred dollars a year, and am healthier. Gee
whiz, I guess those tree huggers sure snookered me.
ST
<law...@xmission.com> wrote:
If Bush fought terrorism like FDR fought the Japanese (Interned them all in
a prison camp)
We'd all be ????? <--insert favorite liberal talking point here..
Robert Chung
> there was a northern hemisphere, a southern hemisphere and a
> combined data set. As it was I tried them all and none of them
> matched his final three years.
So, finally, we find something on which we agree.
Robert Chung
> As for "sloppy". You really are pretensious if you believe that
> printing that makes you look anything other than a twit. How many
> papers are retracted each year because of errors by assistants?
So you're saying Nobel Laureates are in on technical meetings about how
equipment works but Lindzen gives his stuff to assistants. Hmmm.
Tom Kunich
Well, I'm sure that you're easily as bright as a professor at MIT and you
ought to know all about it. As for that particular Frenchman, I couldn't
care less what you believe.
It seems pretty obvious that you are more interested in throwing stones than
discussing the global warming fraud. I remember an old science fiction book
by the title, I think, "They'd Rather Be Right". You and the latest fear
fade group remind me a great deal of the point of that book.
Tom Kunich
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote
>>
>> So you're saying that because he's funded by an oil company he is
>> automatically crooked. Good call from someone that doesn't have any
>> problem with the fact that the only research papers that found bicycle
>> helmets to increase safety were funded by the helmet manufacturers.
>
> Thomas, I gave you all four, remember? That's your four in the face of
> hundreds.
Sorry, but the fast is that you didn't give me "hundreds". What's more - if
you bothered to actually read the scientific papers cited in the IPCC you'd
be surprised that most of them make NO CLAIMS about anthropogenic global
warming.
Hmm, let's be frank about this CO2 has increased in the atmosphere at the
same time man has been generating energy. Of course the rise started in 1780
or so which doesn't fit very closely with the fact that man has only been
generating enough CO2 since about 1950 to even consider as part of the
problem.
This change is about 90 ppm in 200 years. So what exactly does that mean?
Think of it this way - my brother used to keep tropical fish. He had a 50
gallon tank. That's about 190 liters. An American standard drop is 82 ul -
so the change in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than two drops and a half of
water in that 50 gallon tank. Talk about pissing in the ocean.
And you believe that THAT is going to DESTROY the earth.
> What does it mean for me in practical terms? It boils down to more energy
> efficient light bulbs, a push mower, and riding my bike more, plus a few
> others. So I save a few hundred dollars a year, and am healthier. Gee
> whiz, I guess those tree huggers sure snookered me.
Well, that's fine - but as I pointed out - if EVERYONE in the world more
than met the Kyoto Protocols the IPCC estimates that the temperature would
change only .07 degrees C.
Instead we see that the same European nations that were so serious about
signing the Kyoto treaty have actually almost doubled their emissions and
not cut them. China will surpass the USA in CO2 generation within a couple
of years. India is ramping up and will surpass the USA within a maximum of
two decades. And they aren't required to control ANYTHING by the Kyoto
treaty.
The USA is the ONLY country in the world that is actually reducing it's CO2
generation and that is because we're rich enough to afford alternate methods
and to pay for less efficient but less poluting energy sources. But no need
to worry, with the present "environmentalism at any cost" idealism, it won't
be long before we can't afford those less poluting sources. The Pacific
states have already said they intend to limit the CO2 generation they cause
which has already started the few remaining industries looking for a new
home. It is likely that they will move completely out of the USA and into
some country where sanity of a sort still rules.
Phil Holman
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1172628419.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
I ask a simple question and your reply consists of evidence by way of a
shift in thinking of most of the relevant people while admitting that
you do not work on climate studies. Is there something you find
uncomfortable about this?
I don't work on climate studies either but I remain unconvinced that we
have enough answers. More specifically, some of the conclusions here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
90% may be a good level of confidence for making the kinds of changes
being proposed but it's hardly a level you would apply to hard
scientific evidence.
This article is a good "summary" of quite a few of the issues.
http://www.ensleyconsulting.com/write4.html
Phil H
SLAVE of THE STATE
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Raptor" <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> >> Like Shrub gives a shit about the Constitution.
Like any prez does. This place is loaded with glue sniffers.
> > I'd be willing to bet that you've never actually read the Constitution
> > yourself.
>
> You must have some extra laying around then.
Everyone one I can find has been bent, folded, spindled, mutilated,
had holes cut in it, etc...
http://www.mises.org/images4/fdrmyth.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691123764/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-9303884-5681661#reader-link
> If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
> speaking German now.
FDR had no inherent problem with fascism, per se.
"'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White
House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with
that admirable Italian gentleman'" -- http://www.mises.org/story/2312
William Asher
<snip>
>
> I ask a simple question and your reply consists of evidence by way of a
> shift in thinking of most of the relevant people while admitting that
> you do not work on climate studies. Is there something you find
> uncomfortable about this?
>
> I don't work on climate studies either but I remain unconvinced that we
> have enough answers. More specifically, some of the conclusions here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
>
> 90% may be a good level of confidence for making the kinds of changes
> being proposed but it's hardly a level you would apply to hard
> scientific evidence.
>
> This article is a good "summary" of quite a few of the issues.
> http://www.ensleyconsulting.com/write4.html
The only reason you feel this way is that you have been subjected to a
massive p.r. campaign specifically designed to create fear, uncertainty,
and doubt in the scientific basis for the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is
warming the planet and changing the climate. This p.r. campaign is
directly analagous to the campaign waged by the tobacco industry in the
50's and 60's to counter the mounting evidence of a direct link between
smoking and lung cancer. The scientific basis of there being a causal link
between smoking and cancer and CHD was known and proven years before the
federal government did anything precisely because of this effort. The
energy industry has adopted this tactic because it is extremely effective;
most lay scientists don't get the difference between one guy saying things
aren't the way they appear to be and 100 scientists all saying their
conclusions support something else. You *want* to believe that guys like
Gray and Lindzen are right because the counter is too awful to even
contemplate. The energy companies know this, just like the tobacco
companies knew that nobody really wanted to believe the cigarettes they
were smoking were bad for them.
Really though, Baliunis is in it for her 15 minutes of scientific fame, if
she weren't a "climate skeptic" nobody would know who she was. Now she can
make big bucks on the lecture circuit. Lindzen is not ahead of the curve
on understanding climate, the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, or
radiative transfer. He is Einstein, getting bitch-slapped by Neils Bohr
every time he said something stupid about QM. (In that case though, Bohr
got something out of the debate, refuting Lindzen just takes time, effort
and money that could be better spent elsewhere.)
You need to understand the IPCC reports are not doctored, they are not
generated with a predetermined agenda, the scientific assessment is
politically neutral. Read the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (TAR) with an
open mind, go back to the references contained therein. While a lot of the
references don't address climate change per se, they do show that the
science and the conclusions of the TAR are rock solid. Any claim that the
delay between the main report and the executive summary is caused by people
fiddling with the science is delusional and made by people who have never
been involved in generating a document of this type. Getting scientists to
agree on anything is like herding cats down a country lane. The fact that
so many scientists could agree is huge.
Humans are changing the climate. Take that to the bank.
--
Bill Asher
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> >> You know as well as I do there are instances where the majority
> >> position
> >> has been wrong. A lower probability but still a possibility. Are you
> >> basing your position on your own knowledge of the subject or are you
> >> just siding with the majority?
>
> I ask a simple question and your reply consists of evidence by way of a
> shift in thinking of most of the relevant people while admitting that
> you do not work on climate studies. Is there something you find
> uncomfortable about this?
No. You asked a question with a pejorative implication
(am I basing it on my own knowledge or just following
the majority) and I gave it an honest answer. In fact,
I don't work on climate studies, but that does not mean
I am ignorant of recent developments in the field. I can
read papers and listen to talks; but I can't write papers
in that field.
I can't write a paper on stellar evolution either, but I
can tell when the thinking of most of the relevant people
is something I should listen to, and I can tell when
someone is BSing. Reading the language climate change
skeptics use, I can tell that many of them are now reduced
to seizing on the way that scientists phrase things
conservatively and retailing this to the public, which
understandably is not used to the technical lingo.
It is a FUD campaign (fear, uncertainty, doubt) much like
what software makers sometimes engage in.
> I don't work on climate studies either but I remain unconvinced that we
> have enough answers. More specifically, some of the conclusions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
>
> 90% may be a good level of confidence for making the kinds of changes
> being proposed but it's hardly a level you would apply to hard
> scientific evidence.
>
> This article is a good "summary" of quite a few of the issues.http://www.ensleyconsulting.com/write4.html
>
When in a scientific field do we ever have "enough"
answers? There's always something more to study.
But in this case, the basic outlines aren't any longer
in doubt. IMO, that 90% number exists because there
is a well financed campaign against the evidence. If you
talk to somebody who works in the field, they are more
certain than 90%.
Ben
Phil Holman
"William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98E679F61...@130.133.1.4...
CO2 emissions and the atmospheric content becomes stable, would we stem
the current climate change? It'll be interesting to see how a reduction
in emissions (if we ever get any) correlates with warming over the next
few decades. Will we make a dent in the 1.4 to 5.8 deg C predicted
increase over the next century?
Phil H
William Asher
<snip>
> Don't worry, there will be plenty banking on that fact. So, if we reduce
> CO2 emissions and the atmospheric content becomes stable, would we stem
> the current climate change? It'll be interesting to see how a reduction
> in emissions (if we ever get any) correlates with warming over the next
> few decades. Will we make a dent in the 1.4 to 5.8 deg C predicted
> increase over the next century?
Here's something else you can bank on, nothing will stop climate change at
this point and there will always be a few lone voices that get far more
media play than they deserve who will claim it would have happened anyway.
Why do you not believe the IPCC?
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
> When in a scientific field do we ever have "enough"
> answers? There's always something more to study.
> But in this case, the basic outlines aren't any longer
> in doubt. IMO, that 90% number exists because there
> is a well financed campaign against the evidence. If you
> talk to somebody who works in the field, they are more
> certain than 90%.
Climate scientists who understood the system were 90% certain 20 years ago.
Another parallel is ozone depletion, where the initial scientists who
claimed CFCs would be a problem were pooh-pooh'd by nearly the same people
who are now scorning climate change. Of course, Rowland and Molina got the
Nobel for that work and everyone seems to forget that had people listened
and done something when they first sounded the alarm, the problem might not
be as large as it is today. On the other hand, CFCs turn out to be a great
tracer of deep-water formation in the ocean, a process that is highly
relevant to understanding climate change. Go figure.
--
Bill Asher
Tom Kunich
> massive p.r. campaign specifically designed to create fear, uncertainty,
> and doubt in the scientific basis for the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is
> warming the planet and changing the climate.
I wonder if this is anything like the latest Yahoo! story from AP where they
talk about an Inuit who fell through the "melting" ice on his SNOWMOBILE and
was complaining that global warming was destroying his hunting grounds. No
one seemed to notice the irony of this clown blaming internal combustion
engines for his injuries while riding an internal combustion engine.
But here's the bottom line - there isn't anything near enough data to make
ANY claims about anthropogenic warming. The ONLY accurate data we have is
from the satellite scans that began in the 1970's. The USA and the European
records extend for a couple of hundred years only and the accuracy of them
are somewhat questionable but THEY show that the warming trend was already
occuring around 1600 - directly after the end of the little ice age.
By all means I suggest that you give up your car, your home heating and air
conditioning and your food supply. I will really feel a lot better about the
universe if you could do that for us.
Tom Kunich
>
> Here's something else you can bank on, nothing will stop climate change at
> this point and there will always be a few lone voices that get far more
> media play than they deserve who will claim it would have happened anyway.
By all means explain to us WHAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED CLIMATE CHANGE say in the
70's when we were in a cooling trend?
> Why do you not believe the IPCC?
Because what the Summary says isn't what the scientific papers inside say?
William Asher
Tom, empty your colostomy bag, turn your pacemaker back on, and calm down.
I never once asked you, myself, or anyone to do anything about climate
change. You might as well sit on a lawn chair at Malibu and scream at the
tide not to come in (although, for all I know, you already do this so I
apologize if my silly metaphor has a basis in fact). I only asked you to
acknowledge that the science is correct. If you know for a fact that the
scientists are wrong, point me to some links to peer-reviewed publications
in major journals that have not been refuted by subsequent publications
showing that *any* of the major underlying science concerning anthropogenic
global warming is incorrect. I know that literature pretty well and I
don't think you can do it, but I miss things so maybe you know something I
don't. No, ha, what I mean is you know everything and I know nothing so
show me the hard facts so I can convince myself, as you have convinced
yourself, that guys like Ben Santer, Kevin Trenburth, Susan Solomon, Sherry
Rowlands, and Ram Ramanathan are wrong wrong wrong.
You could start here:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/onglobalwarming.html
Ramanathan is not a balls-out greenie, he doesn't want to take away your
car. Show where he is wrong. Or point me to a paper in some major
scientific journal supporting the idea that warming of the globe, not just
Europe, occurred as far back as 1600.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
The summmary is a synthesis of the science in the papers. See, in
something big like this, you never have the one "smoking gun" showing it is
correct. The theory is too big and there are a lot of sub-processes. So,
the scientific papers tend to address the minutia, like whether there is a
global radiative effect of SO2 through sulfate cloud condensation nucleii
(CCN). Then, someone might come along and look at sulfate emissions from
say 1940 through 2000 and notice the global distribution of SO2 emissions
started shifting westward from N. America to Eastern Asia, then someone
else puts that into a GCM and notices that if you move the SO2 from N.
America to China, which is what in fact happened, the cooling from the
sulfate aerosol goes down and global temperature begins to rise in the
model. Is this starting to sound familiar? But nowhere will you find a
paper claiming that the cooling observed in the 70's was because of CCN due
to SO2 emissions negating the positive forcing of CO2. But the IPCC goes
through all that and sorts out the relevant stuff and synthesizes it into a
coherent best-guess understanding of what is going on with climate. Most
importantly, the uncertainty in that best-guess understanding has
precipitously declined in the 20 years the IPCC has been doing this. They
have no vested interest in showing climate change is happening due to man's
activities and they could care less whether you grow your own grain
fertilizing it with shit from your septic tank, generate electricity by
using a generator you salvaged from a 1961 Falcon, and commute to work by
unicyle as opposed to living in Tampa and air-conditioning your uninsulated
house to 65 degrees year-round while driving 100 miles one-way in a full-
blown military HMMWV to your job at Exxon-Mobile.
--
Bill Asher
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E687EDD...@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> Here's something else you can bank on, nothing will stop climate
>>> change at this point and there will always be a few lone voices that
>>> get far more media play than they deserve who will claim it would
>>> have happened anyway.
>>
>> By all means explain to us WHAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED CLIMATE CHANGE say
>> in the 70's when we were in a cooling trend?
>>
>>> Why do you not believe the IPCC?
>>
>> Because what the Summary says isn't what the scientific papers inside
>> say?
>
> The summmary is a synthesis of the science in the papers.
Just today I was riding with a newly retired member of the UCSF mathmatics
team who did the statistics for most of the cancer research in that system.
He has a friend who has written one of the papers for the 2007 IPCC. He said
that this guy claims that most of the papers in the report are very good
science and that very few of them do anything other than cite PROBABILITIES.
The summary ends up taking these and claiming that anthropogenic global
warming is 90% likely. That is far more than a stretch - it is an outright
false claim. (not even to mention that even then, in scientific terms, that
is UNLIKELY). The media and the "environmental movement" has then used that
claim to make their own announcements that NO REAL SCIENTIST BELIEVES
OTHERWISE and that WE MUST ACT NOW.
Don't pretend that isn't the position of MOST of the environmentalists
(read - morons making money from talking about warm fuzzy animals).
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E679F61...@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> The only reason you feel this way is that you have been subjected to
>>> a massive p.r. campaign specifically designed to create fear,
>>> uncertainty, and doubt in the scientific basis for the theory that
>>> anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet and changing the climate.
>>
>> I wonder if this is anything like the latest Yahoo! story from AP
>> where they talk about an Inuit who fell through the "melting" ice on
>> his SNOWMOBILE and was complaining that global warming was destroying
>> his hunting grounds. No one seemed to notice the irony of this clown
>> blaming internal combustion engines for his injuries while riding an
>> internal combustion engine.
>>
>> But here's the bottom line - there isn't anything near enough data to
>> make ANY claims about anthropogenic warming. The ONLY accurate data we
>> have is from the satellite scans that began in the 1970's. The USA and
>> the European records extend for a couple of hundred years only and the
>> accuracy of them are somewhat questionable but THEY show that the
>> warming trend was already occuring around 1600 - directly after the
>> end of the little ice age.
>>
>> By all means I suggest that you give up your car, your home heating
>> and air conditioning and your food supply. I will really feel a lot
>> better about the universe if you could do that for us.
>
> Tom, empty your colostomy bag, turn your pacemaker back on, and calm down.
How about telling me that to my face you blowhard little pussy?
> I never once asked you, myself, or anyone to do anything about climate
> change.
No, instead you've been sniveling about how we are so horrible and implying
that we should have starved ourselves, lived like paupers and never
developed a civilizations that has fed the world and kept fascism and
communism at bay for 100 years.
The fact is that you're a disgusting little pissant incapable of respecting
anything and anyone. Instead you pretend to knowledge and hauty demeanor,
but we both know that in person you're a worm.
William Asher
>
> Just today I was riding with a newly retired member of the UCSF
> mathmatics team who did the statistics for most of the cancer research
> in that system.
>
> He has a friend who has written one of the papers for the 2007 IPCC.
> He said that this guy claims that most of the papers in the report are
> very good science and that very few of them do anything other than
> cite PROBABILITIES. The summary ends up taking these and claiming that
> anthropogenic global warming is 90% likely. That is far more than a
> stretch - it is an outright false claim. (not even to mention that
> even then, in scientific terms, that is UNLIKELY). The media and the
> "environmental movement" has then used that claim to make their own
> announcements that NO REAL SCIENTIST BELIEVES OTHERWISE and that WE
> MUST ACT NOW.
>
> Don't pretend that isn't the position of MOST of the environmentalists
> (read - morons making money from talking about warm fuzzy animals).
A lot of environmentalists are morons. Most climate scientists are very
smart people who have spent lifetimes understanding this. They are
genuinely concerned that we are reaching the tipping point for climate.
Either your friend's friend was being quoted out of context or he doesn't
understand what the IPCC reports represent. It is a scientific synthesis
of disparate results, most of which were written up outside of the context
of anthropogenic climate change.
It is for that reason I've never seen a statement of likelihood in any of
the climate papers I have read ever assessing a probability that the effect
described shows that the global warming is anthropogenic in origin. Maybe
that's because I read a lot of detailed process papers that have nothing to
do per se with global warming. They mainly address issues like whether
there are weird correlations in temperature and CO2 records, what are the
possible mechanisms by which volcanoes impact climate, whether you can
estimate breaking waves from satellites, whether the dependence of the gas
transfer velocity on wind speed is quadratic or cubic etc. etc. None of
these papers estimate the probability that the results show the observed
increase in temperature are anthropogenic in origin. But taken together,
the body of evidence is compelling because each little conclusion is a
brick in the wall of science. If you get enough conclusions cemented
together, then you have a pretty big wall.
Let me give you an example, suppose you wanted to argue that particular
phases of ENSO, either El Nino or La Nina, are what is driving the observed
increase of atmospheric CO2. In other words, the reason atmospheric CO2 is
increasing is that the ocean is ventilating its stored CO2 (you can
calculate the air-sea CO2 flux as the product of the gas transfer velocity
and the concentration difference of CO2 across the air-sea boundary), not
that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. So you propose that this
is what is going on in an open forum. But the people who do global CO2
uptake know that the people who measure CO2 concentrations in the ocean
have not found huge changes in surface CO2 concentrations during any phase
of the ENSO cycle. So they cry out that what you are proposing can't be
true. So you then argue that although the surface CO2 concentrations are
the same over an ENSO cycle, the gas transfer velocity is different and
that is why the atmosphere is getting CO2 from the oceans. But now the gas
transfer people pipe up and say that they've looked at global wind fields
for El Nino and La Nina and they don't see any large differences so the
transfer velocities are likely very similar so it is likely the flux isn't
that much larger during La Nina as it is in El Nino (and in fact, what has
been demonstrated is the El Nino *decreases* atmospheric CO2 because it
caps off the upwelling in the Easter Equatorial Pacific). So the
conclusion is that ENSO can't be responsible for the increase of
atmospheric CO2 because what is understood both about the way the ocean
behaves, and about the microscale processes that must be involved, say it
can't be responsible. But none of those microscale papers on gas transfer
and CO2 chemistry or the "macroscale" papers on ocean circulation and
surface CO2 distributions would have anything in them discussing their
relevance to climate change.
Individual process scientists can't do this synthesis by themselves, the
system is too large and contains too many pieces, but I am confident the
IPCC can.
--
Bill Asher
Nev Shea
> You might as well sit on a lawn chair at Malibu and
> scream at the tide not to come in (although, for all I know, you
> already do this so I apologize if my silly metaphor has a basis in
> fact). I only asked you to acknowledge that the science is correct.
It seems ironic to me that you mock the notion of screaming at the tide not
to come in while asking Kunich to acknowledge that the science is correct.
NS
Fred Fredburger
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172520735.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600733.html
>>
>> Five western states to bypass Bush on climate
>>
>> By Timothy Gardner
>> Reuters
>> Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM
>
>
> It is customary, and polite, to start the subject of off-topic postings
> with "OT:"
>
> -S-
>
>
"You're breaking my heart/you're tearing it apart/so fuck you."
--Ben Franklin
Fred Fredburger
The problem with Evangelical Republicans lately is that ANYTHING they do
is justified if they can think of someone, somewhere, sometime who did
something arguably worse. For example: Abu Ghraib was just dandy when
you consider what Saddam Hussein did in that prison.
Since Saddam Hussein was no paragon of morality, comparing us to him is
setting the bar very low.
Similarly, if one were to search for former presidents who held the
constitution in low regard, Roosevelt would be second on the list.
Lincoln being number 1.
This is sort of a "no President left behind" mentality.
Howard Kveck
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E6957CB...@130.133.1.4...
> The fact is that you're a disgusting little pissant incapable of respecting
> anything and anyone. Instead you pretend to knowledge and hauty demeanor,
> but we both know that in person you're a worm.
And here we have a fine example of the incredible disconnect from reality that you
have, Tom. What you mean here is that you hate the fact that someone isn't showing
what you believe to be the proper levels of respect to *you*. You plainly believe that
you have more knowledge than any- and everyone else in here. Sadly, no. If you want
"haughty" try looking at your own posts. The five months you were off festering in
some warm, dark place were great for this group; the same cannot be said for what it
did to your personality. I don't suppose you noticed the difference in the greetings
you got on your return compared to what Curtis got. Perhaps that would tell you
something, but I doubt it would register.
So tell us, Tom. What's the name of this French Nobel laureate you spoke to? You
know the longer you dodge that one the more you look to be a liar. Of course, that's
just the tip of *that* iceberg.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Fred Fredburger
Did he ever acknowledge that Iraq had no WMD's?
I acknowledge that I lose interest in these threads long before they
peter out, so I may have missed something.
Howard Kveck
Fred Fredburger <FredFre...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> Nev Shea wrote:
> > William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:Xns98E6957CB...@130.133.1.4:
> >
> >> You might as well sit on a lawn chair at Malibu and
> >> scream at the tide not to come in (although, for all I know, you
> >> already do this so I apologize if my silly metaphor has a basis in
> >> fact). I only asked you to acknowledge that the science is correct.
> >
> > It seems ironic to me that you mock the notion of screaming at the tide not
> > to come in while asking Kunich to acknowledge that the science is correct.
>
> Did he ever acknowledge that Iraq had no WMD's?
No, he keeps bloviating about "did you read the Duelfer Report" like it's a magic
wand that proves him right. Unfortunately, it doesn't say what he likes to imply it
does.
Donald Munro
> The five months you were off festering in some warm, dark place
Heather really will have to do something about her refrigerator. Eating
festering meat is not a very healthy way to go on a low carb diet.
> So tell us, Tom. What's the name of this French Nobel laureate you
> spoke to?
Are you speaking of the French Nobel laureate who owns a Phonak cell phone ?
Curtis L. Russell
<fat-d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Heather really will have to do something about her refrigerator. Eating
>festering meat is not a very healthy way to go on a low carb diet.
Up-chucking is very relevant to dieting. Having a bunch of dogs around
means you don't even have to clean up all that much.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Jim Flom
>
> Sorry, but the fast is that you didn't give me "hundreds". What's more -
> if you bothered to actually read the scientific papers cited in the IPCC
> you'd be surprised that most of them make NO CLAIMS about anthropogenic
> global warming.
(emphasis added)
"The Panel's role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and
transparent basis the best available scientific, technical and
socio-economic information on climate change from around the world. The
assessments are based on information contained in peer-reviewed literature
and, where appropriately documented, in industry literature and traditional
practices. They draw on the work of _hundreds_ of experts from all regions
of the world."
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Introduction.pdf
HUMAN AND NATURAL DRIVERS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed
pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure
SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due
primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and
nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (p. 2)
It is _very likely_6 that the observed increase in methane concentration is
due to _anthropogenic activities_, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel
use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well
determined. {2.3, 7.4} (p. 3)
etc., etc.
> Hmm, let's be frank about this CO2 has increased in the atmosphere at the
> same time man has been generating energy. Of course the rise started in
> 1780 or so which doesn't fit very closely with the fact that man has only
> been generating enough CO2 since about 1950 to even consider as part of
> the problem.
Citation?
>> What does it mean for me in practical terms? It boils down to more
>> energy efficient light bulbs, a push mower, and riding my bike more, plus
>> a few others. So I save a few hundred dollars a year, and am healthier.
>> Gee whiz, I guess those tree huggers sure snookered me.
>
> Well, that's fine - but as I pointed out - if EVERYONE in the world more
> than met the Kyoto Protocols the IPCC estimates that the temperature would
> change only .07 degrees C.
But you deny there's a problem? You deny an anthropogenic primary role in
the creation of gerenhouse gases?
> The USA is the ONLY country in the world that is actually reducing it's
> CO2 generation and that is because we're rich enough to afford alternate
> methods and to pay for less efficient but less poluting energy sources.
> But no need to worry, with the present "environmentalism at any cost"
> idealism, it won't be long before we can't afford those less poluting
> sources. The Pacific states have already said they intend to limit the CO2
> generation they cause which has already started the few remaining
> industries looking for a new home. It is likely that they will move
> completely out of the USA and into some country where sanity of a sort
> still rules.
The american automaker's cries remind me of their predecessors.' They lay
off hundred and thousands of workers because they can't compete with the
japenese, and tell them the guy with mouths to feed that he has to adapt to
a changing economic reality. But when someone comes into their bedroom, and
tells the automakers to adapt to a changing reality, like a horsedrawn
carriage manufacturer to henry ford, they fight progress.
Robert Chung
> It seems pretty obvious that you are more interested in throwing
> stones than discussing the global warming fraud. I remember an old
> science fiction book by the title, I think, "They'd Rather Be Right".
Speaking of being right, look at question #4 from Right Wing News:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/03/rightosphere_temperature_check.php
William Asher
news:ffKFh.8089$Jl....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> It seems ironic to me that you mock the notion of screaming at the
> tide not to come in while asking Kunich to acknowledge that the
> science is correct.
Nobody ever said I was the sharpest tool in the shed.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
news:ziJFh.7838$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
<snip>
> The fact is that you're a disgusting little pissant incapable of
> respecting anything and anyone. Instead you pretend to knowledge and
> hauty demeanor, but we both know that in person you're a worm.
Well maybe, but with my impish charm it takes chicks at least a day to
figure that out.
--
Bill Asher
Robert Chung
> Speaking of being right, look at question #4 from Right Wing News:
> http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/03/rightosphere_temperature_check.php
In contrast,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686
More evidence that facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Donald Munro
>> The fact is that you're a disgusting little pissant incapable of
>> respecting anything and anyone. Instead you pretend to knowledge and
>> hauty demeanor, but we both know that in person you're a worm.
William Asher wrote:
> Well maybe, but with my impish charm it takes chicks at least a day to
> figure that out.
Anyway chicks dig worms. Its part of their diet.