Global Warming Debunked
 

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:53:59 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Thirty years ago, the cry was that the earth was cooling and that we
were pushing it back into an ice age.

We wouldn't want you to be fooled by appearence...
Nor would we want you to be, despite the fact that you have been.

Max


The fact is that man is the primary reason for the increase in carbon in
the atmosphere. We need to deal with it asap.



Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.



According to you...



Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Oh, I forgot to mention that I have solar panels on the house... payback
is about 12 years. Cash flow neutral for the year, cash flow slightly
positive during the summer, spring, fall. Changed most of the lightbulbs
to compact fluorescents. Installed low-e windows throughout. Contribute to
the "green" energy program from the local utility. Improved the house
insulation dramatically, including using cellulose vs. fiberglass in the
attic, and installed radiant barrier. Switched the dryer from electric to
gas... more efficient, less expensive. I think I turned on the AC four
times last summer. I'm not ready to buy a hybrid car just yet, which will
be the next major update in the attempt to be as carbon neutral as
possible. And, I have three vehicles, but the good news is that two don't
get driven much.

Good for you--you are energy conscious. But do you use disposable food
containers--plastic milk bottles, cardboard boxes, plastic condiment
containers, etc.? If so you're contributing to the pollution of the planet.
I realize that foods don't come in reusable containers any longer, but such
things should be considered unless we want to be knee-deep in refuse some
day. Do you change your car's oil? If so, what do you do with the oil?
What do you do with discarded oil filters and air filters?

Also, I volunteer with a environmentally oriented group, which does local
cleanups of the bay....

A good start.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.

Max


Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...

Right. I traded one career for another that afforded me four to six times
the income. What a failure.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max

Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM


Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines started
having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and salaries
didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job when the
industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. Rob wrote:
Like I said, SAD. There is nothing in our geological history that
comes close to the changes we are seeing now.
Not only is there geological history that indicates we are in a
typical GW cycle, but some of those previous cycles are worse than
what we're observing in this one.
Very true. Bubbles is typical of those who myopically choose to see
only one side of an issue, failing completely to examine the facts
which might dispute their contention.

My take on global warming: The ardent environmentalists, of which I
consider myself one of the most ardent, have had little or no success
in passing measures, either legislatively or economically, which will
effectively begin to clean up the planet's air, water, and land.
Neither have they/we been successful in just mitigating the expansion
of pollution, let alone reducing it. Subsequently the most radical
environmentalists have contrived a plan to get everyone's attention:
global warming. It is little more than a scare tactic to attempt to
frighten a world populace into adopting some clean and green
practices. But it has been a failure, and will be forgotten soon,
much the same as the aluminum cookware/cancer scare of the 1960s.
The GW movement has gotten a lot of folks on board--mostly those who
want to believe, as opposed to those who can be convinced by hard
science and an examination of both sides of the issue--but even they
will eventually put their vigorous, evangelistic dogma aside for lack
of substantive evidence. Thirty years from now, GW will be something
people chuckle about--just another chapter in the humor of human
existence.

You might claim I'm not an environmentalist at all because I'm not on
board with the whole GW thing. Not true. I believe that cleaning up
the planet and reducing the levels of pollution are paramount for a
future environment that will be conducive to a healthy human
existence. But the evidence *against* GW is at least as substantial
as that *for* it, and to turn a blind eye toward it is a fool's
errand. The human race may, indeed, be responsible for some
component of the warming of the planet, but the degree of that
contribution is unknown, and the significance of it cannot be
accurately predicted at this time. Until we have better data, I see
no reason to jump on the GW bandwagon. Show me the money . . . er,
evidence, and I'll be among GW's most outspoken. Until then, I'm more
than just a little ****ed at the distraction that the GW folks have
created, taking the impetus away from the known and quantifiable
aspects of global pollution. I'll continue to work for cleaner air,
water, and land. The sooner we get past this GW phenomenon and get
back to the real business of cleaning up the planet, the better.

Max
Well said. I've been in the same camp for years.
Do you own a Cessna 310? One of my favorite airplanes. I've got about
400 hours in type.

Max
Flew one in corporate charter for years. Great plane. Got about 3000
in type, 4500tt. Still my fav.

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized. You've got me by a couple thousand hours. I flew
skydivers off and on for a decade, most in Super Twin Otters and King
Airs. My favorite airplane is a Pilatus Super Porter--ugly as sin (big
box) but flies like a dream and carries just about anything you can cram
into it. After dropping jumpers, I'd aim the spinner at Mother Earth,
reverse the prop and descend with them at 115 kts. I could usually get
on the ground before them. Got written up by the Friendly Aviation
Agency a couple of times for "flying too close to jumpers." Great plane.

Max

Sounds cool. Have seen pictures of that maneuver. Have some time in 18s
and 99s, but that was maybe the most unpleasant part of my aviation life.
Not the planes, but the circumstances.

Interesting that I was on the same track before the bottom fell out of
commercial airline opportunities. I got out 20 years ago and started down
a different path.

I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor, but
with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military, there
was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but I just
couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled checks in
a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate" career went.
Talk about boring work.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 5/31/2007 4:28 PM:
....
Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.


According to you...


Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Oh, I forgot to mention that I have solar panels on the house... payback
is about 12 years. Cash flow neutral for the year, cash flow slightly
positive during the summer, spring, fall. Changed most of the lightbulbs
to compact fluorescents. Installed low-e windows throughout. Contribute
to the "green" energy program from the local utility. Improved the house
insulation dramatically, including using cellulose vs. fiberglass in the
attic, and installed radiant barrier. Switched the dryer from electric to
gas... more efficient, less expensive. I think I turned on the AC four
times last summer. I'm not ready to buy a hybrid car just yet, which will
be the next major update in the attempt to be as carbon neutral as
possible. And, I have three vehicles, but the good news is that two don't
get driven much.

Good for you--you are energy conscious. But do you use disposable food
containers--plastic milk bottles, cardboard boxes, plastic condiment
containers, etc.? If so you're contributing to the pollution of the
planet. I realize that foods don't come in reusable containers any longer,
but such things should be considered unless we want to be knee-deep in
refuse some day. Do you change your car's oil? If so, what do you do
with the oil? What do you do with discarded oil filters and air filters?

Also, I volunteer with a environmentally oriented group, which does local
cleanups of the bay....

A good start.

Max



A quick response... then I'm outta here to go sailing for a couple of
hours...

Use some recycled food containers... best you can do without washing out
ziplocks. Recycle cardboard boxes, etc. via the recycling program or
craigslist. I use synthetic oil in all the cars. Change the oil every 20K or
so. The air filter doesn't need to be tossed.. can be reused. A good start I
suppose. I could do more.

I wonder how many people here actually do this sort of stuff.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global Warming Debunked
 

On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:37:52 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 5/31/2007 4:28 PM:
...
Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.


According to you...


Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.

I don't think the 10,000,000,000 odd tons of carbon/year are in much
doubt at all, or the levels of atmospheric CO2 or even the 1.2 W/m2
CO2 radiative forcing (fig2). The doubt is mainly in the
clouds/aerosol contribution and the sensitivity of temperature to
radiative forcing. Just a big coincidence, I suppose, that it all
seems to fit..

Global Warming Debunked
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max
Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM

Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines started
having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and salaries
didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job when the
industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max



Factory, eh? Poor thing.

Global Warming Debunked
 

Maxprop wrote:


I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor, but
with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military, there
was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but I just
couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled checks in
a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate" career went.
Talk about boring work.

Max


Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words. ;)

Global Warming Debunked
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:53:59 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Thirty years ago, the cry was that the earth was cooling and that we
were pushing it back into an ice age.

We wouldn't want you to be fooled by appearence...
Nor would we want you to be, despite the fact that you have been.

Max

The fact is that man is the primary reason for the increase in carbon in
the atmosphere. We need to deal with it asap.


Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.


According to you...


Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


Document was written before there was much study. Now it seems that the
conclusions drawn in that work are under reconsideration. This is one
of the specific documents under dispute.

Global Warming Debunked
 

Jeff wrote:
* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 5/31/2007 4:28 PM:
...
Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the
reason for increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even
more in question as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of
GW. So your statement is not founded in FACT, but rather in
CONJECTURE.


According to you...


Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of
the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.


This particular article has been disputed and the results have been
questioned. They changed the math to meet their anticipated results.

Sorry, read the appendices.

Global Warming Debunked
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:37:52 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 5/31/2007 4:28 PM:
...
Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.

According to you...

Show the numbers.
Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf

The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.

I don't think the 10,000,000,000 odd tons of carbon/year are in much
doubt at all, or the levels of atmospheric CO2 or even the 1.2 W/m2
CO2 radiative forcing (fig2). The doubt is mainly in the
clouds/aerosol contribution and the sensitivity of temperature to
radiative forcing. Just a big coincidence, I suppose, that it all
seems to fit..


If not otherwise so widely disputed, the researchers' guess might be a
little more credible.

Global Warming Debunked
 

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:01 PM:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


Document was written before there was much study. Now it seems that the
conclusions drawn in that work are under reconsideration. This is one
of the specific documents under dispute.

Wow! Talk about your fast moving fields. That paper was only
published a week ago!

In fact, its only a portion of a report that won't be complete until
later this year. It is intended to be the up most up to date
collection of all of the latest research and is the basis for the
current policy planning. Its fascinating that your personal research
is so advanced that you've made this all obsolete.

Global Warming Debunked
 

Jeff wrote:
* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:01 PM:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


Document was written before there was much study. Now it seems that
the conclusions drawn in that work are under reconsideration. This is
one of the specific documents under dispute.

Wow! Talk about your fast moving fields. That paper was only published
a week ago!

In fact, its only a portion of a report that won't be complete until
later this year. It is intended to be the up most up to date collection
of all of the latest research and is the basis for the current policy
planning. Its fascinating that your personal research is so advanced
that you've made this all obsolete.





My mistake. I read the Exec Summary, scanned through a lot of the body.
It just read like an earlier study that has been so torn apart that it
no longer has any value. I need to go through the references to see if
the results of that bogus study (or others similarly criticized works)
have been used.

Global Warming Debunked
 

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:08 PM:
Jeff wrote:
The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.


This particular article has been disputed and the results have been
questioned. They changed the math to meet their anticipated results.


You're thinking of the minor controversy about one chart in the Third
assessment, TAR. This version has only been out in its preliminary
form for a few months. It is a massive document, pretty unequivocal
in its support for the basics of Human causes of Global Warning. Are
you seriously claiming they would publish this huge report, including
the portions of the "executive summary" I quoted above, and then tuck
a "just kidding" in some appendix?

Sorry, read the appendices.

I found nothing like you describe. Perhaps you'd like to show your
supporting documentation.

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:25:09 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max

Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM


Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines
started
having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and salaries
didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job when the
industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max


Factory job? PLEASE elaborate! Before I retired, I was corporate VP of
operations for a publically traded company that included manufacturing,
but it
was a LOT more complex than just that. I got an obscenely huge bonus for
being
instrumental in launching a very successful IPO. I've never heard of
anybody
referring to that business as a "factory", regardless.

Okay, Bubbles . . . er, BB. Take your pill and head off to bed. The
delusions will be gone by morning.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max
Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM

Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines
started having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and
salaries didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job
when the industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max

Factory, eh? Poor thing.

Yeah. It's rather sad, actually. He's insanely jealous of those of us
who've been successful. He attempts to denigrate our work and
accomplishments.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:


I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor,
but with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military,
there was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but
I just couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled
checks in a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate"
career went. Talk about boring work.

Max
Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words. ;)

Don't be envious. The Lear 24 is, IMO, a death trap. There have been a
number of tuck-under accidents--i.e.--loss of control. Fly by the numbers
in good weather and you'll be okay. Push it toward its operational limits
and it can bite. To its credit it was nimble and relatively easy to get
into shorter fields. Two friends died in 24s, albeit one was simply a
navigational error (read: side of mountain). I've flown right seat in a 35
Longhorn, which is, again IMO, a superior airplane in all respects. Very
stable and forgiving, right up to the edge of the envelope.

Have you ever flown a Beech Duke?

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max
Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM
Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines
started having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and
salaries didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job
when the industry turned into a nightmare?
Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max
Factory, eh? Poor thing.

Yeah. It's rather sad, actually. He's insanely jealous of those of us
who've been successful. He attempts to denigrate our work and
accomplishments.

Max



What a shame. So he's not in the Smithsonian? What a shame.

Global Warming Debunked
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor,
but with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military,
there was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but
I just couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled
checks in a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate"
career went. Talk about boring work.

Max
Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words. ;)

Don't be envious. The Lear 24 is, IMO, a death trap. There have been a
number of tuck-under accidents--i.e.--loss of control. Fly by the numbers
in good weather and you'll be okay. Push it toward its operational limits
and it can bite. To its credit it was nimble and relatively easy to get
into shorter fields. Two friends died in 24s, albeit one was simply a
navigational error (read: side of mountain). I've flown right seat in a 35
Longhorn, which is, again IMO, a superior airplane in all respects. Very
stable and forgiving, right up to the edge of the envelope.

Have you ever flown a Beech Duke?

Max



Nope. Only in 18s and 99s. And not what I consider much time in those.

But speaking of losing friends, lost my best friend in college to a twin
Comanche single engine rollover. The only plane I ever hated.

Global Warming Debunked
 

On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:43:22 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Jeff wrote:
* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:01 PM:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


Document was written before there was much study. Now it seems that
the conclusions drawn in that work are under reconsideration. This is
one of the specific documents under dispute.

Wow! Talk about your fast moving fields. That paper was only published
a week ago!

In fact, its only a portion of a report that won't be complete until
later this year. It is intended to be the up most up to date collection
of all of the latest research and is the basis for the current policy
planning. Its fascinating that your personal research is so advanced
that you've made this all obsolete.





My mistake. I read the Exec Summary, scanned through a lot of the body.
It just read like an earlier study that has been so torn apart that it
no longer has any value. I need to go through the references to see if
the results of that bogus study (or others similarly criticized works)
have been used.



Time to report back to base and get the party line, I think you mean.

Global Warming Debunked
 

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:43 PM:

My mistake. I read the Exec Summary, scanned through a lot of the body.
It just read like an earlier study that has been so torn apart that it
no longer has any value. I need to go through the references to see if
the results of that bogus study (or others similarly criticized works)
have been used.

The Third Assessment certainly had a few vocal critics, and a small
part of the criticism may have been deserved. But "torn apart"? I
hardly think so. The proof is that the AR4 reaffirms the basic
conclusions of the TAR. I thought they even had a press conference
last month to report that this report was even more dire than the
previous.

Global Warming Debunked
 

On May 30, 1:20 pm, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:56:14 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

the most radical environmentalists have
contrived a plan to get everyone's attention: global warming. It is little
more than a scare tactic to attempt to frighten a world populace into
adopting some clean and green practices.

An op ed piece made your point rather succinctly in today's Journal:
"Greens, it seems, always manage to find a problem for every environmental
solution."

Adopting clean and green practices is not a bad idea.
Going crazy with them is a bad idea. I'd just like to
see sensible discussion of the issue.

Global Warming Debunked
 

On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:15:39 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap:


But, Nancy Pelosi saw first-hand evidence of global warming in
Greenland. I believe her. She's at least as much as an expert as Gore
is. . .


When Lief Ericson established a colony in Greenland, trees grew there.
Otherwise they couldn't have built houses, or heated them during the
winter. The colony failed when trees weren't being replaced.





This post is 100% free of steroids

Global Warming Debunked
 

On Wed, 30 May 2007 23:13:27 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote this crap:


Do you own a Cessna 310? One of my favorite airplanes. I've got about 400
hours in type.

Flew one in corporate charter for years. Great plane. Got about 3000
in type, 4500tt. Still my fav.


My nephew is getting one in a few weeks. I can't wait to fly in it.
It'll be a big savings over the family jet for short trips.





This post is 100% free of steroids

Global Warming Debunked
 

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:20:30 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote this crap:


summer. I'm not ready to buy a hybrid car just yet, which will be the next
major update in the attempt to be as carbon neutral as possible. And, I have
three vehicles, but the good news is that two don't get driven much. Also, I
volunteer with a environmentally oriented group, which does local cleanups
of the bay....


Community Service doesn't count as, "volunteer work."

I'm one better than you. I fertilize my lawn with recycled beer,
which saves toilet flushes, and makes a really green yard, which takes
CO2 from the air, and my rose bushes are doing really well. This does
three things. The roses take CO2 from the air, they keep the pesky
neighbors from my yard, (rose bushes are nature's barbed wire,) and my
girlfriend loves the roses I give her.




This post is 100% free of steroids

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:35:25 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:25:09 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max

Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM


Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines
started
having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and
salaries
didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job when the
industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max


Factory job? PLEASE elaborate! Before I retired, I was corporate VP of
operations for a publically traded company that included manufacturing,
but it
was a LOT more complex than just that. I got an obscenely huge bonus for
being
instrumental in launching a very successful IPO. I've never heard of
anybody
referring to that business as a "factory", regardless.

Okay, Bubbles . . . er, BB. Take your pill and head off to bed. The
delusions will be gone by morning.

Max


What? You think that if I take a pill, your delusions will be gone? You
are more
deluded than previously thought.

CWM

These responses of yours are getting rather weak, BB. Step up the pace a
bit or I'm outta here. No fun.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor,
but with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the
military, there was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying
corporate, but I just couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I
did fly cancelled checks in a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far
as my "corporate" career went. Talk about boring work.

Max
Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words. ;)

Don't be envious. The Lear 24 is, IMO, a death trap. There have been a
number of tuck-under accidents--i.e.--loss of control. Fly by the
numbers in good weather and you'll be okay. Push it toward its
operational limits and it can bite. To its credit it was nimble and
relatively easy to get into shorter fields. Two friends died in 24s,
albeit one was simply a navigational error (read: side of mountain).
I've flown right seat in a 35 Longhorn, which is, again IMO, a superior
airplane in all respects. Very stable and forgiving, right up to the
edge of the envelope.

Have you ever flown a Beech Duke?

Max

Nope. Only in 18s and 99s. And not what I consider much time in those.

But speaking of losing friends, lost my best friend in college to a twin
Comanche single engine rollover. The only plane I ever hated.

The Twin Comanche had a bad rep. Piper added counter-rotating props later
to attempt to save the model, but it was too little too late. I've ridden
right seat in them, but no PIC time. Just as well, I think. My favorite
twin, beside the Duke, is a Cessna 337 Skymaster. Great performance, if
noisy, and engine-out events were no big deal.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
Community Service doesn't count as, "volunteer work."

I'm one better than you. I **** on my lawn, which saves toilet
flushes, and makes a really green yard, which takes
CO2 from the air, and my rose bushes are doing really well. This does
three things. The roses take CO2 from the air, they keep the pesky
neighbors from my yard, (rose bushes are nature's barbed wire,) and my
girlfriend loves the roses I give her.




This post is 100% free of steroids


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Global Warming Debunked
 

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:36:09 -0700, Bart
wrote:

On May 30, 1:20 pm, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:56:14 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

the most radical environmentalists have
contrived a plan to get everyone's attention: global warming. It is little
more than a scare tactic to attempt to frighten a world populace into
adopting some clean and green practices.

An op ed piece made your point rather succinctly in today's Journal:
"Greens, it seems, always manage to find a problem for every environmental
solution."

Adopting clean and green practices is not a bad idea.
Going crazy with them is a bad idea. I'd just like to
see sensible discussion of the issue.

I'm not sure that your idea of using nuke to start a volcano sets a
very good example. And it would not work.