If this is global warming...
Robatoy
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."
Pete C.
28 degrees here in hot sunny (not) Texas... Brrrr! I'm leaving for
Hawaii Monday morning :)
Pete C.
ja...@ganssle.com
cancelled due to the ice storm.
Jack
Swingman
<ja...@ganssle.com> wrote in message
> According to the Drudge Report, a House Hearing on Global Warming was
> cancelled due to the ice storm.
Poor Al ... if he had the courage of his convictions he's probably got rid
of all his coats by now.
Naaahhh!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
nailsh...@aol.com
warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.
I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
Robert
Joe Bleau
Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
might help you out.
Doug Miller
global warming out of our driveway. Right up next to the garage, the global
warming was drifted up to mid-thigh. Overnight lows the next coupla nights are
predicted below zero, and that's Fahrenheit. I'm sure to the folks in
Minnesota, that seems kinda balmy... but it's pretty dang cold for
Indianapolis. For most of the last week or two, our daily highs have been
colder than the normal *low* for this time of year.
I think I've had about all the global warming I can take.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Chris Friesen
> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
winters.
Chris
J. Clarke
<nailsh...@aol.com> wrote:
I dunno--if he got the idea that he could have a career in show biz it
might keep him out of politics. On the other hand it didn't stop
Hanoi Jane.
jo4hn
OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn
Joe Bleau
wrote:
>>
>OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
>you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
> luck to all,
> jo4hn
It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.
Joe
Swingman
<nailsh...@aol.com> wrote in message
> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.
>
But, but, but .... OK, if I have to to get along. But the equally touted
"Look out! the Ice Age is coming" back in the 70's has got me sorta cynical
about "lies, damn lies and statistics", if you know what I mean, Vern?
> I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
Hell will freeze over first ... well, maybe just one, with a little "o",
just to keep the gullible gullible.
Lew Hodgett
> I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
OK, I'll ask, "Why not?"
Lew
Steve
the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we
forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart.
These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago
that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was
coming soon.
Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
The fossil records speak very clearly. Areas 10,000 years ago were
once deserts, now they are lush and other areas where giant lakes and
forests are now arid.
Global cycles yes, man made global warming, a big fat NO.
Steve
Leon
"Chris Friesen" <cbf...@mail.usask.ca> wrote in message
news:12t74vd...@corp.supernews.com...
The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past
few years.
Leon
"Lew Hodgett" <lewho...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PMNAh.2239$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> nailsh...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
>
> OK, I'll ask, "Why not?"
Al Gore's head would explode.
Pete C.
That would be a good thing... especially if caught on tape so we can
replay it over and over...
Robatoy
Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.
Gore did have a lot to do with the growth and funding of them thar
intarweb tubes.
There are a lot of Americans who are wondering how things would have
turned out had the popular vote actually won in 2000.
I have not seen Gore's movie, but many people that have, liked it.
Obama/Clarke 2008. ANYbody but that douche-nozzle Clinton. I have said
too much.
Were there ANY hurricanesin 2006? That is so weird... what, there 5
big mofo's in 2005?
Swingman
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> Obama/Clarke 2008. ANYbody but that douche-nozzle Clinton. I have said
> too much.
ROTFLMAO! ... where the hell is Pat Paulson when you need him??
Doug Miller
And the problem with that is... ?
upand_...@yahoo.com
Temperature changes cause weather patterns to shift. It's about the
average GLOBAL temperature, not local.
Mike
Doug Miller
>On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Bleau <JoeBl...@Nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" <des...@topworks.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Up to my groin in snow.
>> >Just a few drifts.
>> >*poke, poke, poke*
>> >"There's a car in here somewhere..."
>>
>> Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
>> you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
>> might help you out.
>
>Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.
Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
And Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it.
upand_...@yahoo.com
> The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
> cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past
> few years.
That one year is warmer or cooler than the next is irrelevent; it's
about the historical trend.
See the graph at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Mike
CW
"Robatoy" <des...@topworks.ca> wrote in message
news:1171503081....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Gore never said that.
Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
needed to change to words a bit.
Swingman
> On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, "Leon" wrote:
> > The Earth has been worming since the Ice Age. Since 1999 it has been
> > cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the
past
> > few years.
> That one year is warmer or cooler than the next is irrelevent; it's
> about the historical trend.
Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of, give or
take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the supposed
culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
"historical", but what the hell.
BTW, wanna buy my Rolex? ... it's real too, I promise.
> See the graph at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Wikipedia!!??? ... damn I wish you hadn't invoked the JUDGE of JUDGES!! ...
my gawd, it must be right, I mean WIKIPEDIA, where any one can logon edit
the data?? Jeeaaz, we _are_ sunk, what with all the cow farts, and now
WIKIPEDIA as evidence, indeed we're doomed.
But really now, just between us ... doesn't it kinda make you wonder how
those millions upon millions upon millions of buffalo, and teeming herds of
deer and elk, eating those prairie grasses for eons, held 'em in for so
long?
ITMT, I think I'll go have a steak ...
Doug Miller
Not quite -- he said "I took the initiative in creating the internet."
Which *also* wasn't true.
Robatoy
>
> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
Rove spin.
The rest is out-of-context semantics.
Here is Snopes:
Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say
anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore
said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-
context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf
Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked
to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
improvements in our educational system."
Snopes continues:
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-
serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the
sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was
responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the
development the
technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was
seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet
is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close
presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the
words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.
Robatoy
Context....context.
Swingman
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> On Feb 14, 9:17 pm, "CW" <cmag...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Robatoy" <des...@topworks.ca> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
> > needed to change to words a bit.
>
> Context....context.
Interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Transcript right here:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/
When the Internet was "created", Gore was 21 and still in school.
CW
Gore had not only stuck his foot in his mouth but swallowed the whole leg.
They spent a lot of time doing damage control. If you had watched the
interview, Gore's intent was clear.
"Robatoy" <des...@topworks.ca> wrote in message
news:1171508384....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lee K
Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If it's
cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's because of
global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's because of global
warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes, it's because of global
warming.
Lee K
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:8oOAh.6092$o6...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
Then he'd be All Gore.
DouginUtah
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <gitr...@nospam.com>
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: If this is global warming...
>
[Snip of Steve's opinions]
>
Steve,
Maybe these references will help you get up to speed on global warming.
http://peakoildesign.com/blog/peakengineer/global_warming_myths_and_lies
See #5.
Also:
"Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming
predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age
and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column
and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate
scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton's State of
Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too. But its not an
argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles
under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in *newsgroups*
though.
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press.
There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g.
Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible
for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various
papers that mention the subject, then try
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/."
> Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
> show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
> a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
J Ren (China)
N Nicholls (Australia)
M Rusticucci (Argentina)
P Stott (UK)
U Lohmann (Switzerland)
R Stouffer (USA)
V Kattsov (Russia)
T Matsuno (Japan)
-Doug
DouginUtah
"Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message >
>
[Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>
>
I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
-Doug
Swingman
> Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If
it's
> cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's because of
> global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's because of global
> warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes, it's because of global
> warming.
Oh oh, now you've done it! ... the induced brain farts from that will
surely increase the greenhouse gasses.
I can feel it getting hot in here already.
jo4hn
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn
todd
news:er0k2g$7cp$1...@news.xmission.com...
Here's another indisputable correlation. Of all the people convicted of
murder in this county, over 99% of them ate bread at least once. With that
kind of correlation, I think it's obvious what the government should do.
todd
Mark & Juanita
wrote:
>nailsh...@aol.com wrote:
>> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
>> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
>I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>
>The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
>Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
>general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
>winters.
>
>Chris
It must be nice to be able to promote, and get tax-payer supported funding
for, a theory such that no matter what happens, those occurrences are
proof that your theory is correct.
Really hot summers? Proof of global warming.
Really cold winters? Proof of the temperature extremes being caused by
global warming.
Really warm winter (as of up to Jan this year)? Obvious
Really rainy summer? Proof of the extremes caused by global warming.
Lots of hurricanes? Proof of global warming
Lower than average number of hurricanes (2006), especially after the dire
predictions of 2005? .... crickets
Unfortunately, for the rest of us, our theories have to be demonstrated
in a more binary fashion.
Man, whatta racket.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Swingman
>
> "Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message >
> >
> [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
> >
> >
> I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we
can
Well, I don't understand the lack of "thought processes" of those who can't
grasp the scientific difference between opinion, hypothesis, and theory ...
particulary those who continually engage in a demonstrable and unscientific
confusion of correlation and causation.
> dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year,
year
> after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
> earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
> correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Otherwise known as "Statistics of small numbers" ... while you're add it,
add up the volcanoes and buffalo farts throughout history and see where they
lead you.
Lew Hodgett
> Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of,
give or
> take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the
supposed
> culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
> statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
> "historical", but what the hell.
Only problem with the above is that it is not valid.
Historical data is determined by core samples, not temperature records.
Result is that historical trends being developed are perhaps more
accurate than we would like to admit.
The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.
As the old saying goes, "What comes around, goes around."
Lew
Swingman
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ...
Huh??
Better watch those epoxy fumes, Lew. ;)
Mark & Juanita
Several obvious questions:
1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like
urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?
2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or
simply statistical "noise"?
3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those
temperatures during the late 19'th century?
4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored
because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?
... and of course the most obvious issue, this is a small snapshop of 150
years. That is a relatively small snapshot in time. Small rises in
temperature such as this, neglecting the likely urban heat sink local
warming issues, are very likely due to solar cycles that have nothing to do
with human causes.
I know I certainly wouldn't trust these people to sell me a used car, let
alone radically alter my lifestyle, give up various liberties, or pay more
to the government in "global warming tax" taxes.
Lew Hodgett
> Huh??
>
> Better watch those epoxy fumes, Lew. ;)
>
Think about it.
The world is a finite place.
There is a finite amount of resource, water, soil, air, etc.
Every action has a reaction.
If man continues to screw up the world, he has nobody but himself to
blame.
BTW, laminating epoxy contains no VOCs.
Sent an AQMD inspector muttering under his breath out of the boat yard
because he lost an opportunity to fine me.
The expression on his face said it all when he saw the epoxy drum.
Lew
Mark & Juanita
To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
conclusions contrary to their faith.
To the former point, I've seen other conclusions, but am too tired to go
digging for em right now. It's not worth it anyway, it will only
demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but opposite
PhD." Wouldn't matter anyway, those who have signed onto the global
warming religion aren't going to believe anything that derails that
nebulous theory. Even more so those who are convinced that all of that CO2
increase is man-made and man-caused (what they usually mean is western
civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
industrial nations apparently has no effect).
Mark & Juanita
wrote:
>Somebody wrote:
>
> > Sure thing, Bubba ... barely 100 years of record keeping out of,
>give or
> > take a few millions, and only the last 70 really counting for the
>supposed
> > culprit, manmade greenhouse gases, is a what I would call a real valid,
> > statistical, and historical, trend ... albeit a little short on the
> > "historical", but what the hell.
>
>Only problem with the above is that it is not valid.
>
>Historical data is determined by core samples, not temperature records.
>
>Result is that historical trends being developed are perhaps more
>accurate than we would like to admit.
>
... and the precision with which one can measure temperature by core
samples is? One can measure the amount of snowfall, perhaps a certain
amount of data regarding freeze/thaw cycles, but measuring mean average
temperature to the degree being promoted as proof of global warming? There
are also anomalies such as the "little ice age" during the middle ages, as
well as a brief "global warming" period that followed that. The other real
problem here is that nobody takes into account the tremendous heat
sink/moderator that covers 7/8 of the Earth's surface.
>The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.
>
>As the old saying goes, "What comes around, goes around."
>
>Lew
Robatoy
> Snopes=another Gore apologist. Event the Democrats (dipshits) realized that
> Gore had not only stuck his foot in his mouth but swallowed the whole leg.
> They spent a lot of time doing damage control. If you had watched the
> interview, Gore's intent was clear.
Nonsense. The Dems attempt at damage control was a direct result from
the piranha-like feeding frenzy of the biased media. What Gore said
was stupid, because he left himself wide open to misinterpretation.
Nobody in their right mind believes that Gore tried to lay claim on
inventing the internet. Gore paid for his awkward word choices but
some people feel the need to take a piss on a corps.... imaginary or
real.
In The Netherlands there is a saying which translates as follows: "He
who wants to beat a dog, can always find a stick."
You label Snopes as Gore apologists. Why? Because it helps you make
your case?
How typical. How Rovian. How arbitrary.
J. Clarke
Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
dynamic in nature.
>-Doug
>
Puckdropper
news:u2PAh.6005$MN....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
> In article <8oOAh.6092$o6...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, "Leon"
> <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
*trim*
>>Al Gore's head would explode.
>
> And the problem with that is... ?
>
Too gorey. I'd never make it past the censors.
Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
Robatoy
while you're add it,
> add up the volcanoes and buffalo farts throughout history and see where they
> lead you.
>
I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
water.
I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
lantern going for a while.
But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.
Lew Hodgett
>
> I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
> water.
> I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
> lantern going for a while.
Maybe so, but a buffalo burger is totally tasteless, IMHO.
> But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
> 4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.
Even living in SoCal, I'm no authority on Tex/Mex or even authentic
Mexican food, but TacoBell, give me a break.
Lew
Lobby Dosser
In that sense, it is a lot like El Nino. Which got blamed for everything
from a shortage of tobacco to psoriasis.
Andrew Barss
The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
:>aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
: To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
: warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
: conclusions contrary to their faith.
You don't know a whole lot about refereed journals, from the sound of it.
The referees are well-trained, mainstream, reputable scientists.
Many hundreds of them. Do you think the editors of all the major
science journals in the world are members of a secret society
that has an agenda to promote the illusion of global warming? And that they
somehow have been able to identify the minority of scientists whole agree with them,
and have excluded all other scientists from the editorial review process?
: demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but opposite
: PhD."
And that contradicts your point above.
-- Andy Barss
Larry
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
affirming or denying global warming?
--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
Larry
be introduced into this thread?
Larry
ice age" to "scientists who predict global warming will never change
their minds."
todd
news:er0r8u$h03$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
How about a job? How about continued funding? Anyone who disputes global
warming is labeled a crackpot, so there's a huge disincentive to question
the conclusions at this point.
todd
todd
news:1171513688.6...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think we're going to have to develop a corollary to Godwin's Law that
applies to Karl Rove references.
todd
todd
No need. We already have the liberals' new version of the Nazi
reference...Karl Rove.
todd
Steve
>opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
>J Ren (China)
>N Nicholls (Australia)
>M Rusticucci (Argentina)
>P Stott (UK)
>U Lohmann (Switzerland)
>R Stouffer (USA)
>V Kattsov (Russia)
>T Matsuno (Japan)
>
>-Doug
>
No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
Brennan.
We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
shivering under.
If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
weather fronts?
Steve
wrote:
>Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
>that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
>dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
>years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
>aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
> or you might try prayer,
> jo4hn
CO2, atmospheric levels now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm).
Paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300
ppm there has been an ice age. Every time, without exception.
The same records show that there have been a series of ice ages over
the past 5 million years, naturally occurring every 100,000 years,
with about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
of interglacial climate.
The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. I am more inclined to
believe what has happened in the past without exception, than the
incredibly unreliable speculation about what will happen into the
future 100 to 1000 years from now. Are planet is cyclical, what goes
around comes around.
Does this mean we will be heading into an ice age anytime soon,
certainly not. One thing I do know for sure is that the sky is not
falling, Chicken Little.
Glen
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> Up to my groin in snow.
>> Just a few drifts.
>> *poke, poke, poke*
>> "There's a car in here somewhere..."
>>
> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
> you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
> the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
> melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
> Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
> luck to all,
> jo4hn
when the glaciers reached as far south as NYC.
Glen
Glen
>> you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>> the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>> melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>> Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>> luck to all,
>> jo4hn
>
> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>
> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
> with spotted owls.
>
> Joe
Taste like chicken.
Glen
J. Clarke
lwas...@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry) wrote:
>Anyone want to start a pool on when and from which side nazis will
>be introduced into this thread?
Too late, you just did it.
J. Clarke
What is interesting is that according to those same ice cores, instead
of peak and precipitate drop in temperature, there had been a peak
and hold this time. And that hold goes back far more than the few
hundred years that the advocates of the industrial-emission theory are
claiming. So it seems likely that _something_ has changed that has
nothing to do with human activity, or if the something is human
activity it's not industrial CO2 emissions.
Whatever we're doing, if humans _are_ doing it we bloody well better
keep it up until we figure out the consequences of _stopping_.
That's the big problem I have with the "we must fix this
******NOW******" argument--we don't have any reason other than a bunch
of opinions to believe that we won't be jumping out of the frying pan
into the fire.
At some point, the world is going to warm, whether humans do it or
not. The natural state over tens of millions of years has been warm
enough that there were no ice caps. The only reason that humans think
that the current state is "normal" is that we've never experienced in
our few tens of thousands of years of existence anything _different_.
If we see it as a bad thing then at some point we're going to have to
interfere with natural processes in order to _stop_ it.
The big question, that nobody seems to want to address, is "is what we
are seeing the natural end of the ice ages".
Doug Miller
>On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>
>That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>Rove spin.
Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
elected to Congress.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Doug Miller
Actually, you *over*stated that by an order of magnitude.
Consider:
Surface area of the planet is approximately 200 million square miles. That's
5.6 quadrillion square feet, or about 800 quadrillion square inches.
Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving a total
atmospheric mass of approximately 12 quintillion pounds, or 6 quadrillion
tons. Four tenths of one percent, approximately, of that is CO2; thus the
total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 24 trillion tons.
20 GT is less than one *tenth* of one percent of total atmospheric CO2.
Doug Miller
>In article <s8o7t2tbi959t5af9...@4ax.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"<she...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>>I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
>>>dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
>>>after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
>>>earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
>>>correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>
>>Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
>>the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
>>dynamic in nature.
>
>Actually, you *over*stated that by an order of magnitude.
OOPS! My mistake, not yours. Disregard -- I blew it. See below.
>
>Consider:
>
>Surface area of the planet is approximately 200 million square miles. That's
>5.6 quadrillion square feet, or about 800 quadrillion square inches.
>Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving a total
>atmospheric mass of approximately 12 quintillion pounds, or 6 quadrillion
>tons. Four tenths of one percent, approximately, of that is CO2; thus the
>total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 24 trillion tons.
Sorry -- it's actually four *hundredths* of one percent, and your figure of
one percent of total is correct.
Doug Miller
>The sooner man realizes that the world is a closed system, the better.
It's *not* a closed system. We get an enormous input of energy from the sun. A
closed system by definition is one that has no interchange of matter or energy
with its environment.
Doug Miller
>Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
>care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
>affirming or denying global warming?
Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is
warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be
recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.
Doug Miller
> Several obvious questions:
>1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like
>urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?
>
>2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or
>simply statistical "noise"?
>
>3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those
>temperatures during the late 19'th century?
>
>4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored
>because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?
5) By what possible mechanism does human action on Earth cause the
recently observed shrinkage of the polar ice caps on ***MARS*** ?
That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the Earth
is warming due to human activity.
Swingman
> I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
> lantern going for a while.
> But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses.
> 4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa.
Actually, reminds me of a lead singer or two I've known.
When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead
singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay.
... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the
drummer better beaver shots in the front row!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
Leon
>
> I should know better than to read one of your posts with a mouthful of
> water.
> I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman
> lantern going for a while.
Hell I can do that!
Leon
"Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0dQAh.10579$gj4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Chris Friesen" <cbf...@mail.usask.ca> wrote in message
> news:12t74vd...@corp.supernews.com...
>> nailsh...@aol.com wrote:
>>> All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
>>> warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>>
>> I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>>
>> The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
>> Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
>> general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
>> winters.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If
> it's cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's because
> of global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's because of global
> warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes, it's because of global
> warming.
I recently heard that more and stronger hurricanes are a direct result of
cleaner air. Less filtration of the sun's heat over the ocean.
Leon
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:l3SAh.5880$ov2.4737@trndny06...
>>
>>
>
> In that sense, it is a lot like El Nino. Which got blamed for everything
> from a shortage of tobacco to psoriasis.
El NIno translated, We're going to wait and see what the weather is going to
be like, then blame it on El Nino.
La Nina has the same basic translation.
I like to think, Its colder or hotter this year.
Robatoy
>
> No need. We already have the liberals' new version of the Nazi
> reference...Karl Rove.
>
> todd
You said it, not me. If there is a difference, it is the fact that
Rove is feeding people dirt, and they're liking it. Goebbels wasn't
that clever.
Robatoy
Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them
though,
Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me.
Leon
> I have not seen Gore's movie, but many people that have, liked it.
Most like sicience Fiction.
>
> Were there ANY hurricanesin 2006? That is so weird... what, there 5
> big mofo's in 2005?
>
Yes , I think 3 or 4 times less than 2005 and that many times less than
predicted.
Bob Schmall
>> Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
>> opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
>> J Ren (China)
>> N Nicholls (Australia)
>> M Rusticucci (Argentina)
>> P Stott (UK)
>> U Lohmann (Switzerland)
>> R Stouffer (USA)
>> V Kattsov (Russia)
>> T Matsuno (Japan)
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>
> No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
> logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
> Brennan.
>
> We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
> regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
> their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
> by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
> continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
> creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
> shivering under.
Please acquaint yourself with the difference between weather and
climate. Global warming ain't about weather.
>
> If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
> contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
> is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
> weather fronts?
The Arctic is not a refrigerator-- it is an effect and not a cause of
climate. It is now mostly free of ice, as you admit, the result of
global warming. Which, BTW, is the subject of a meeting of 600
scientists at the present. You made the unsubstantiated claim that you
could provide the names of 100 scientists who believe that global
warming is cyclical for every one who believes that is is man-made.
You owe us 6,800 names.
I'll give you the name of one (most definitely) non-scientist who
believes that it is man-made: George W. Bush. Or is Charlton Heston
still your president?
Bob
Robatoy
> In article <1171508384.459588.90...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Robatoy" <des...@topworks.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> >> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>
> >That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
> >Rove spin.
>
> Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
> all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
> that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
> elected to Congress.
>
I actually admire Rove, in a sick way. He's one of the brightest in
the administration.
Gore said something that was open to misinterpretation, something that
is quite clear when you read his statement. But that would mean you'd
have to have an open mind, and put biases aside. But you can't do that
anymore, Doug.... Rove got to you first. Now your mind is set, which
also means that we should stop this part of the thread.
If you think Rove has nothing to do with media spin, on a grand scale,
think Swift-boats.
Leon
"Glen" <gNO...@ix.NOSPAM.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:YfXAh.2375$Jl....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> It has been happening for years,ever since the end of the last ice age
> when the glaciers reached as far south as NYC.
>
> Glen
Farther south than that, Huge boulders in farmers fields in the mid-west
are proof.
Bob Schmall
> "DouginUtah" <she...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:er0k2g$7cp$1...@news.xmission.com...
>> "Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message >
>> [Snip of Swingman's opinions]
>>>
>> I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we
>> can dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every
>> year, year after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major
>> effect on the earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct
>> positive correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>
> Here's another indisputable correlation. Of all the people convicted of
> murder in this county, over 99% of them ate bread at least once. With that
> kind of correlation, I think it's obvious what the government should do.
>
> todd
>
>
This may be the most ridiculous "argument" I've ever seen. Taken on the
face of it, anything can be caused by anything else. For example,
"hundreds of thousands of hunters enter Wisconsin every year and the
deer herd is increasing. Therefore, hunting cause population increase in
deer." Another: "all druggies drank milk when they were kids.
Therefore...."
There must be an evidentiary link between cause and effect. And there is
plenty of hard evidence for global warming. Even if it is caused
primarily by cyclical changes in the earth's atmosphere, the results can
be catastrophic. Do a little checking on the "Little Ice Age" of
1635-1715 (known to astronomers as the Maunder Minimum) when lakes in
England froze year-round.
Someone else "made the point" that we have only 100 years of data. True,
but we also have instruments that can weigh molecules, detect motion in
stars trillions of miles away, and measure pollution to within parts per
billion. Support for global warming is based on hard evidence and not
just aneccdotes or short-term historiography.
The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges
it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for
millions of people and billions of dollars in property.
Bob
Bob Schmall
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
>>>> you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
>>>> the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
>>>> melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
>>>> Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
>>>> luck to all,
>>>> jo4hn
>>>
>>> It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
>>> before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.
>>>
>>> Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
>>> with spotted owls.
>>>
>>> Joe
>> that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
>> dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (>.3 million
>> years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
>> aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
>
> warming adherents,
Because they have evidence.
You imply that GW is some kind of liberal plot. Prove this.
Bob Schmall
> Well, we have gone from "30 years ago scientists were predicting another
> ice age" to "scientists who predict global warming will never change
> their minds."
Really? Who said that?
Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
one thing: hard evidence. The scientists who know about GW have
evidence, lots of it. But then, since when has evidence ever trumped
belief? Check your TV listings for the Coral Ridge Hour--you wouldn't
believe what they're saying.
Bob
Doug Miller
>On Feb 15, 7:55 am, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <1171508384.459588.90...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Robatoy"
> <des...@topworks.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>> >> Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
>>
>> >That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
>> >Rove spin.
>>
>> Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
>> all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
>> that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
>> elected to Congress.
>>
>That's the spin Rove gave it. You bought into it. He's good, eh?
No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.
Doug Miller
>Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "for". :-)
>one thing: hard evidence. The scientists who know about GW have
>evidence, lots of it. But then, since when has evidence ever trumped
>belief? Check your TV listings for the Coral Ridge Hour--you wouldn't
>believe what they're saying.
--
Swingman
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
> Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
> one thing: hard evidence.
So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and
causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence".
It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take
the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as
scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not
even rise to the level of an "hypothesis".
One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
"computer modeling".
In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not
least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying
upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish.
Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based
solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in
reality. GIGO!
Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better
argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the
point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side.
DouginUtah
news:er0r8u$h03$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
> Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
> care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
> affirming or denying global warming?
Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
(and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
tobacco companies and smoking.
-Doug
Swingman
> Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil
> (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has
> ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the
> tobacco companies and smoking.
Hypocritical horseshit!
To stop what? Manufacturing hydrocarbon based products so you could do
things like brush your teeth and drive to work this morning? Were you
comfortable in your cozy house last night up there in Utah with the heat on?
_If_ there is a culprit, don't blame anyone but the guy you see in the
mirror.
J. Clarke
Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
journal.
Larry Blanchard
> Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
> show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
> a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
I was going to stay out of this off-topic argument, but the above is pure BS.
Where were your hundreds of dissenters at the recent global warming
conference? I suspect you've got the ratios reversed.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Charles Koester
They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
randomly selected research papers on climate change
published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
Zip. nada.
A quote:
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the consensus view; 25%
dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
no position on current anthropogenic climate
change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position.
Read it for yourself:
<http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf>
My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.
Charles Koester
celticsoc
> nailshoote...@aol.com wrote:
> > All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
> > warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
>
> I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
>
> The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
> Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
> general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
> winters.
>
> Chris
The concept was recently amended to "climate change". Probably due to
the fact there was an ice age preicted 30 years ago, and when the
evidence started to point in a different direction, they went with
"global warming". Now they have come to the realization that they
can't really predict such things, and the pendulum might swing again.
Therefore, they need an all-encompassing term for their fear-
mongering.
The problem I have is that there seems ot be a general objective
consensus that temperatures may be rising, but there is far from a
consensus on cause, particularly in light of the fact that the earth's
history has shown repeated episodes of climate extremes with no
possibility of human intervention. Yet we are supposed to
dramatically change the way we operate in the US while other countries
are not going to be bound by the same constraints.
Seems more like politics to me...
Robatoy
>
> No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
> exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.
>
> --
If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting
to it?
So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement?
Doug Miller
>On Feb 15, 10:23 am, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>> No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did*
>> exist long before Gore was elected to Congress.
>>
>to it?
That statement *is* the point.
>
>So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement?
Nobody said that. (Nice red herring, though.) The point is that Gore claimed
to have, while a member of Congress, taken "the initiative in creating"
something that already existed *before* he was in Congress.
Robatoy
[snipped for brevity]
>
> One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
> as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
> "computer modeling".
>
> In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
> insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
> statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
10%. (May not be valid in your state).
Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
strings attached?
Follow the money.
As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
them."
Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
outside and have the stink blown off ya...
Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
in bankrupting your company.
Swingman
"Robatoy" wrote in message
>>Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ą
10%. (May not be valid in your state).
Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
strings attached?
Follow the money.
As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
them."
Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
outside and have the stink blown off ya...
Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
in bankrupting your company.<<
A man (properly cynical) after my own heart!
Just Wondering
>
> When asked
> to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
> Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
> Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
>
>
> "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
> initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
> forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
> to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
> improvements in our educational system."
>
> Gore never used the word "invent," and the
> words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.
>
>
OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create
and saying invent?
DouginUtah
> Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
> from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
> journal.
I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers
are not given credence in scientific journals.
Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed :
ExxonMobil global warming deniers
into Google. The first item was:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say.
"News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to
undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to
overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil."
An excerpt:
"Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that
either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global
climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of
"skeptic" scientists who continue to do so."
However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But
you were civil, so I have replied.
(BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly.
Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not
civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.)
-Doug
Lew Hodgett
> OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
> to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying
create
> and saying invent?
I assume this is an attempt at humor.
Lew