| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Global Warming Debunked
Is Al Gore, hitching his reputation to a lie?
Most reputable scientists think so. Here is another opinion. ************************************************** ***** Global warming debunked By ANDREW SWALLOW The Timaru Herald Saturday, 19 May 2007 Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week. Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained. "We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it. "It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said. Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained. "If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time." The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. "That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said. "We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates." Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned. "The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is? "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. |
Global Warming Debunked
"Bart" wrote in message ups.com... Is Al Gore, hitching his reputation to a lie? Most reputable scientists think so. Here is another opinion. ************************************************** ***** Global warming debunked By ANDREW SWALLOW The Timaru Herald Saturday, 19 May 2007 Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week. Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained. "We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it. "It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said. Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained. "If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time." The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. "That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said. "We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates." Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned. "The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is? "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. 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. . . http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070528/D8PDMFK80.html Wilbur Hubbard |
Global Warming Debunked
MORE
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition I'd like to see Al Gore stand up in front of these guys and answer their questions...hehehehe http://www.oism.org/pproject/ Al Gore is a hypocrite Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth" Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh-more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh -guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. "As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. |
Global Warming Debunked
Essay Claiming 'Scientific Consensus' for Global
Warming is Ridiculed By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer December 07, 2004 (CNSNews.com) - A Science Magazine essay claiming there is a "scientific consensus" about human-caused "global warming" was ridiculed Monday by a British scientist, who compared such a "consensus" to the near-unanimous elections that existed in the old Soviet Union. On Monday, Benny Peiser, a United Kingdom social anthropologist, called the Dec. 3 essay, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," a "disturbing" study. "A one-hundred-percent record of 'scientific consensus' on anthropogenic climate change would be a sensational finding indeed. In fact, such a total result would be even more remarkable than any 'consensus' ever achieved in Soviet-style elections," Peiser noted sarcastically. The Science Magazine essay analyzed 928 abstracts containing the keyword "climate change," all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The essay found that not a single one of the studies showed climate change to be naturally occurring. The essay was written by University of California professor Naomi Oreskes, a member of the University's Department of History and Science Studies Program. According to Oreskes, "None of these (928) papers argued that [current climate change is natural]." "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with [United Nations] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies," Oreskes wrote. "Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect," she added. "The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen," concluded Oreskes. But Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University and the editor of of CCNet (Cambridge Conference Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes' essay a "disturbing article. "Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked. "Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added. According to Peiser, Oreskes' assertion that there is a 100 percent consensus about the issue is not backed by science. "Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself did not take consensus politics to such extremes," Peiser explained. "In the Soviet Union the official 'participation rate' was never higher than 98-99 percent. "So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added. 'Easily debunked falsehood' Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute, also criticized the idea that there is a "scientific consensus" on "global warming." "Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood in an erstwhile reputable, peer-review publication (Science Magazine) demonstrates either a new low in desperation or a new generation believing there are no checks and therefore no limits," Horner told CNSNews.com. After all, past nonsense brought increasing taxpayer funding for decades. What would make them think they can't just make things up?" Horner added. Iain Murray, a senior fellow in International Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote a letter to the editor of Science Magazine questioning why the study was even published. "I was surprised to see Science publish an article crowing over the existence of a scientific consensus on global warming and then advancing the non-sequitur that political action is therefore needed. Neither is a point worthy of consideration in an objective, scientific journal," Murray wrote in his letter to the editor, dated Dec. 6. "...the message of the article -- that politicians must act on the basis of the science -- is clearly a political point rather than a scientific one," Murray continued. "...the argument advanced by the author that 'our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it' is barely economically literate and has no place in a scientific journal," he added. See Related Articles: Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief' - (Dec. 2, 2004) John McCain's 'Global Warming' Hearings Blasted by Climatologist (Nov. 19, 2004) |
Global Warming Debunked
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief' By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer December 02, 2004 Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.' "Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences. Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added. According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change. "With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said. Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said. "It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said. Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy." "The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added. 'Repetition makes people believe' The climate change debate has become corrupted by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen. "It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements [about climate change]. They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money," Lindzen said. "Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added. "There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and his famous observation that even a lie will be believed if enough people repeat it. "There is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis," Lindzen said. He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded. 'Alarm is the aim' "The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world. "The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained. Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a problem,' we have to figure out a better reward than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple as that," he said. The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support. Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said. "Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added. The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said. "If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said. |
Global Warming Debunked
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com... Is Al Gore, hitching his reputation to a lie? Most reputable scientists think so. Here is another opinion. ************************************************** ***** Global warming debunked By ANDREW SWALLOW The Timaru Herald Saturday, 19 May 2007 Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week. Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained. "We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it. "It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said. Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained. "If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time." The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. "That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said. "We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates." Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned. "The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is? "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
On 29 May 2007 13:26:19 -0700, Bart wrote:
Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University "Sport Sociology"? I suppose you will be quoting The Timaru Herald next... |
Global Warming Debunked
It's always sad when seemingly intelligent people ignore serious
environmental problems simply because they don't like the people who are involved in trying to fix them. Most major scientific organizations, including my father's friends at The Museum of Natural History know what's happening They have a research station in Greenland and it's downright scary. Talking about Kyoto vs. the economy is truly sad. Nothing should come before the health of this planet and there are trillions to eventually be made off of new energy processes. The folks fighting all of this have their hands in the old technology and they don't care about future generations. It's absolutley staggering to me that anyone who sails could ever think that the economy should come before an issue like this. Staggering. http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris...emelt_2002.jpg You can google up all the pics you want. They all show the same thing. As for the Oregon Petition.... In 2005, Scientific American reported: " Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. and better yet.... In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency? Nice work, Bart. You're a ****ing idiot. Notice the latest twice a year accidental dumping in the LIS? I guess you don't believe that either. RB 35s5 NY |
Global Warming Debunked
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. You mean like the Bu****s wrt to wiretapping, anti-abortion, and torturing people by proxy? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
On May 29, 10:03 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
It's always sad when seemingly intelligent people ignore serious environmental problems simply because they don't like the people who are involved in trying to fix them. Most major scientific organizations, including my father's friends at The Museum of Natural History know what's happening They have a research station in Greenland and it's downright scary. Nice work, Bart. You're a ****ing idiot. Notice the latest twice a year accidental dumping in the LIS? I guess you don't believe that either. RB 35s5 NY Instead of discussing things like a gentleman, you are vulgar, hateful, nasty, and mean spirited. How could anyone take you seriously when you act like a kook. Too bad you are not a gentleman Rob. You would see that there is more to the argument that one side. I believe that we should take reasonable measures to protect the environment I just don't agree with all the BS associated with your liberal views on how it is caused. Study the Little Ice Age and consider all the ramifications. Ask also what was the period just before the Little Ice Age like? Warm eh? Very warm? With bountiful crops? How could that be? The Earth has gone through warmer phases than this and not so long ago. We should not expect the Earth to stay exactly as it is. It never has and it never will be static. Man didn't start it and we can't stop it short of taking extreme measures. There is nothing that Kyoto would do that would have any significant impact on global warming. I read that. However, I do support preserving our environment is intelligent well-thought out ways. I don't support radicalizing it and making hate speech about it. If you really want to take measures to prevent global warming, why don't your support using a nuke to start a volcano and put some dust in the atmosphere? That would solve the problem overnight. If you really believe Global Warming needs to be stopped that would work and could be done right now, this year, unstead of the inevitable warming change everyone is saying will occur. 10,000 years ago, the coastline was at what is now 60 fathoms. Why not get all that coastline back they way it used to be. We should have walrus off the coast of LI again! That makes as much sense as your kook views. You take the view that man is responsible for all evil. I take a more hopeful view. You further take the view that the US is the root of all evil. I disagree with that also. What does Kyoto Require of China or India? They should keep polluting? I don't think we should be tied to a different standard than everyone else. I do think we should find ways to mimimize human impact on the environment that make sense. To do that we need open and honest discussion without the hateful language. It would be better to help developing countries that are cutting corners with cleaner technologies and by providing tax exemptions for companies that develop such technologies. Now go take a Valium and try to be polite next time. |
Global Warming Debunked
Too bad you are not a gentleman Rob. You would see that
there is more to the argument that one side. I believe that we should take reasonable measures to protect the environment I just don't agree with all the BS associated with your liberal views on how it is caused. Study the Little Ice Age and consider all the ramifications. Ask also what was the period just before the Little Ice Age like? Warm eh? Very warm? With bountiful crops? How could that be? Like I said, SAD. There is nothing in our geological history that comes close to the changes we are seeing now. Did you even read the Oregon Petition. They mostly agree on global warming. The concensus is in question, but the VAST MAJORITY of scientists and scientific institutions know what's happening because the last 3 years of data is beyond question. Of course some of those very same doubting scientists claimed that the Alaskan shelf would not melt in 100 years. Gee wiz...a big unk of it went in 4 years. Only a simpleton applies polictical parties and agenda's to an obvious problem like this. Meanwhile, doesn't toss you a clue when a petition is signed and the names are not questioned? You couldn't have done more than a minutes worth of googling or you might have discovered that. But of course, believing in some sort of "liberal ,movement" that will injure our dumb auto builders is all you really care about. Fortunately there are many people like me who can actually read and comprehend and understand a geological time table. It's so insane. Most scientists agreed on those tables and data...until they indicated we were in an unatural man made phase of atmospheric disturbance. So what kind of person is will to rework accepted truths to suit a political agenda? What kind of person dismisses truth because he doesn't care for the messengers? History is repleat with these lowlifes and Bart is of the same cloth. Global warming is real, folks. Virtually every scientific organization agrees on that. They also agree that nothing in the known geological timetable hints at such an abrubt change, except for those dealt by planetary impacts. So what's left? 100 years of pouring soot into our air, chemstry into the oceans and grime on the ice. The Earth is big, but it's not immune to such an attack and we're seeing that now. The bottom line is that we'll see the truth very soon. But just like Iraq, there will always be those who refuse to see the obvious. There were no WMD's, Bart. Bin Laden is still free. We still have meager forces in Iraq, and that was the case even when there was support for the war. Why? Bush based his war on photos shown on TV that were between 8-12 years old, though more recent pics existed to refute the evidence. There is video of Bush, Condoliza and so on laughing at the idea of Iraq as a US threat, taken after 9/11. Most scientists agree that global warming is real and that it's not part of a natural cycle. A few small groups that were on the fence have since come to agree on the issue including 1/3 of those from the Oregon Petition who actually had credentials. You will never wake up because you view the world as liberals/republicans/democrats and so on. You don't even know that those words are used to manipulate you and have long since lost their true meanings. That's why any true republican, who knows what the party stands for, is against Bush, who has virtually NO republican values. But there are always a dopey group of Americans willing to buy anything if it says MADE IN THE USA stamped on the box. I can't help you, Bart. Probably no one can. If the shelfs melt and sea levels kill millions, who will you blame? Clinton? The Liberals? Naturally all efforts will go into trying to afix blame rather than dealing with the problem head on, and you'll be top of the class. Finally, there is a big difference between acting like a gentleman and actually being one. You have no idea what that difference is since you continue to spout uneducated and unsolicted politican and psuedo scientic nonsense here. And that's why I'm truly a gentleman, Bart. That's why I have everything you don't. I have a beautiful wife and son....great friends, a new home and lakefront land, two new cars, a nice boat that actually sailed today and isn't being refit to the end of time and so on. And all you have is a bitterness towards imaginary liberals who are trying to save the spotted Owl and bring down General Motors. The problem is not the Owl, Bart. It's Americans like you who have no vision or sense of world responsibility. Greedy Americans who not only have a international "us or them" mentality, but one for their fellow Americans as well. Bart, you're the absolute bottom filth of the worst imaginable type of American. Even a serial killer has insanity in his defense. You have only ingnorance fueled by bigotry and conservative mania. And that's no defense at all. Shame on you. RB 35s5 NY |
Global Warming Debunked
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Its all about following the money. The GW enthusiasts have created a panic against which they can get gov't grants to do research $$ and contracts to develop solutions to the synthesized problem. GW has been with us for the past 18,000 years. So which factory or auto emission started that warming trend before the Egyptians figured out which way to align the pyramids? CO2 levels are rising. That's what happens when it gets warmer and the bacteria get more active. The fact that our current CO2 levels "appear" greater than those in the ice core samples is easily explained by the outgassing of CO2 from the ice over thousands of years. The same reason carbonated water goes flat if its left in the glass for hours. Glacial retreat? That's what happens when the earth emerges from an ice age. Thirty years ago, the cry was that the earth was cooling and that we were pushing it back into an ice age. |
Global Warming Debunked
Capt. Rob wrote:
It's always sad when seemingly intelligent people ignore serious environmental problems simply because they don't like the people who are involved in trying to fix them. Most major scientific organizations, including my father's friends at The Museum of Natural History know what's happening They have a research station in Greenland and it's downright scary. Talking about Kyoto vs. the economy is truly sad. Nothing should come before the health of this planet and there are trillions to eventually be made off of new energy processes. The folks fighting all of this have their hands in the old technology and they don't care about future generations. It's absolutley staggering to me that anyone who sails could ever think that the economy should come before an issue like this. Staggering. http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris...emelt_2002.jpg You can google up all the pics you want. They all show the same thing. As for the Oregon Petition.... In 2005, Scientific American reported: " Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. and better yet.... In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency? Nice work, Bart. You're a ****ing idiot. Notice the latest twice a year accidental dumping in the LIS? I guess you don't believe that either. RB 35s5 NY Try reviewing historical trends over the last sever warming / cooling cycles. No differences between those and the current cycle except that some were more extreme than what we have today. Criticize all you want. Personally attack those with differing views. But you can't change history. |
Global Warming Debunked
Capt. JG wrote:
You mean like the Bu****s wrt to wiretapping, anti-abortion, and torturing people by proxy? Glad you could stay on topic. |
Global Warming Debunked
Capt. Rob wrote:
Too bad you are not a gentleman Rob. You would see that there is more to the argument that one side. I believe that we should take reasonable measures to protect the environment I just don't agree with all the BS associated with your liberal views on how it is caused. Study the Little Ice Age and consider all the ramifications. Ask also what was the period just before the Little Ice Age like? Warm eh? Very warm? With bountiful crops? How could that be? 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. Did you even read the Oregon Petition. They mostly agree on global warming. The concensus is in question, but the VAST MAJORITY of scientists and scientific institutions know what's happening because the last 3 years of data is beyond question. Of course some of those very same doubting scientists claimed that the Alaskan shelf would not melt in 100 years. Gee wiz...a big unk of it went in 4 years. Only a simpleton applies polictical parties and agenda's to an obvious problem like this. Meanwhile, doesn't toss you a clue when a petition is signed and the names are not questioned? You couldn't have done more than a minutes worth of googling or you might have discovered that. But of course, believing in some sort of "liberal ,movement" that will injure our dumb auto builders is all you really care about. Fortunately there are many people like me who can actually read and comprehend and understand a geological time table. It's so insane. Most scientists agreed on those tables and data...until they indicated we were in an unatural man made phase of atmospheric disturbance. So what kind of person is will to rework accepted truths to suit a political agenda? What kind of person dismisses truth because he doesn't care for the messengers? History is repleat with these lowlifes and Bart is of the same cloth. Global warming is real, folks. Virtually every scientific organization agrees on that. They also agree that nothing in the known geological timetable hints at such an abrubt change, except for those dealt by planetary impacts. So what's left? 100 years of pouring soot into our air, chemstry into the oceans and grime on the ice. The Earth is big, but it's not immune to such an attack and we're seeing that now. The bottom line is that we'll see the truth very soon. But just like Iraq, there will always be those who refuse to see the obvious. There were no WMD's, Bart. Bin Laden is still free. We still have meager forces in Iraq, and that was the case even when there was support for the war. Why? Bush based his war on photos shown on TV that were between 8-12 years old, though more recent pics existed to refute the evidence. There is video of Bush, Condoliza and so on laughing at the idea of Iraq as a US threat, taken after 9/11. Most scientists agree that global warming is real and that it's not part of a natural cycle. A few small groups that were on the fence have since come to agree on the issue including 1/3 of those from the Oregon Petition who actually had credentials. You will never wake up because you view the world as liberals/republicans/democrats and so on. You don't even know that those words are used to manipulate you and have long since lost their true meanings. That's why any true republican, who knows what the party stands for, is against Bush, who has virtually NO republican values. But there are always a dopey group of Americans willing to buy anything if it says MADE IN THE USA stamped on the box. I can't help you, Bart. Probably no one can. If the shelfs melt and sea levels kill millions, who will you blame? Clinton? The Liberals? Naturally all efforts will go into trying to afix blame rather than dealing with the problem head on, and you'll be top of the class. Finally, there is a big difference between acting like a gentleman and actually being one. You have no idea what that difference is since you continue to spout uneducated and unsolicted politican and psuedo scientic nonsense here. And that's why I'm truly a gentleman, Bart. That's why I have everything you don't. I have a beautiful wife and son....great friends, a new home and lakefront land, two new cars, a nice boat that actually sailed today and isn't being refit to the end of time and so on. And all you have is a bitterness towards imaginary liberals who are trying to save the spotted Owl and bring down General Motors. The problem is not the Owl, Bart. It's Americans like you who have no vision or sense of world responsibility. Greedy Americans who not only have a international "us or them" mentality, but one for their fellow Americans as well. Bart, you're the absolute bottom filth of the worst imaginable type of American. Even a serial killer has insanity in his defense. You have only ingnorance fueled by bigotry and conservative mania. And that's no defense at all. Shame on you. RB 35s5 NY Those personal attacks are becoming so typical of those that refuse to view both sides on an issue. Its all about following the money. Create a panic and then profit from it. |
Global Warming Debunked
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: You mean like the Bu****s wrt to wiretapping, anti-abortion, and torturing people by proxy? Glad you could stay on topic. It was absolutely OT, due to this: While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Don't know much about CO2 issues do you. Well, no problem. Most reputable scientests know the real story. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Its all about following the money. The GW enthusiasts have created a panic against which they can get gov't grants to do research $$ and contracts to develop solutions to the synthesized problem. GW has been with us for the past 18,000 years. So which factory or auto emission started that warming trend before the Egyptians figured out which way to align the pyramids? CO2 levels are rising. That's what happens when it gets warmer and the bacteria get more active. The fact that our current CO2 levels "appear" greater than those in the ice core samples is easily explained by the outgassing of CO2 from the ice over thousands of years. The same reason carbonated water goes flat if its left in the glass for hours. Glacial retreat? That's what happens when the earth emerges from an ice age. 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... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
"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 |
Global Warming Debunked
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Its all about following the money. The GW enthusiasts have created a panic against which they can get gov't grants to do research $$ and contracts to develop solutions to the synthesized problem. GW has been with us for the past 18,000 years. So which factory or auto emission started that warming trend before the Egyptians figured out which way to align the pyramids? CO2 levels are rising. That's what happens when it gets warmer and the bacteria get more active. The fact that our current CO2 levels "appear" greater than those in the ice core samples is easily explained by the outgassing of CO2 from the ice over thousands of years. The same reason carbonated water goes flat if its left in the glass for hours. Glacial retreat? That's what happens when the earth emerges from an ice age. 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 |
Global Warming Debunked
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Don't know much about CO2 issues do you. Well, no problem. Most reputable scientests know the real story. And those scientists whose expertise on co2 leads them away from your belief are disreputable? Max |
Global Warming Debunked
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: You mean like the Bu****s wrt to wiretapping, anti-abortion, and torturing people by proxy? Glad you could stay on topic. It was absolutely OT, due to this: While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Don't know much about CO2 issues do you. Well, no problem. Most reputable scientests know the real story. i agree most reputable scientists know the story. That's why htye are starting to speak up and disagree with the whole man-made global warming BS. |
Global Warming Debunked
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. |
Global Warming Debunked
"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 |
Global Warming Debunked
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. |
Global Warming Debunked
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Its all about following the money. The GW enthusiasts have created a panic against which they can get gov't grants to do research $$ and contracts to develop solutions to the synthesized problem. GW has been with us for the past 18,000 years. So which factory or auto emission started that warming trend before the Egyptians figured out which way to align the pyramids? CO2 levels are rising. That's what happens when it gets warmer and the bacteria get more active. The fact that our current CO2 levels "appear" greater than those in the ice core samples is easily explained by the outgassing of CO2 from the ice over thousands of years. The same reason carbonated water goes flat if its left in the glass for hours. Glacial retreat? That's what happens when the earth emerges from an ice age. 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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
"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 |
Global Warming Debunked
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Its all about following the money. The GW enthusiasts have created a panic against which they can get gov't grants to do research $$ and contracts to develop solutions to the synthesized problem. GW has been with us for the past 18,000 years. So which factory or auto emission started that warming trend before the Egyptians figured out which way to align the pyramids? CO2 levels are rising. That's what happens when it gets warmer and the bacteria get more active. The fact that our current CO2 levels "appear" greater than those in the ice core samples is easily explained by the outgassing of CO2 from the ice over thousands of years. The same reason carbonated water goes flat if its left in the glass for hours. Glacial retreat? That's what happens when the earth emerges from an ice age. 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. On this you and I agree completely. In fact I couldn't agree more. But please don't expect me to believe that the increase in atmospheric co2 is the prime reason our planet is warming. The evidence for that is nebulous at best, and ignores the more likely factors which include, among others, that the planet is simply in a warming trend, which it has been for several thousand years. What disturbs me, Jon, is that I haven't seen anything from you about cleaning up the planet. Or don't you care? Max |
Global Warming Debunked
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. |
Global Warming Debunked
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. |
Global Warming Debunked
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? |
Global Warming Debunked
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Its all about following the money. The GW enthusiasts have created a panic against which they can get gov't grants to do research $$ and contracts to develop solutions to the synthesized problem. GW has been with us for the past 18,000 years. So which factory or auto emission started that warming trend before the Egyptians figured out which way to align the pyramids? CO2 levels are rising. That's what happens when it gets warmer and the bacteria get more active. The fact that our current CO2 levels "appear" greater than those in the ice core samples is easily explained by the outgassing of CO2 from the ice over thousands of years. The same reason carbonated water goes flat if its left in the glass for hours. Glacial retreat? That's what happens when the earth emerges from an ice age. 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. On this you and I agree completely. In fact I couldn't agree more. But please don't expect me to believe that the increase in atmospheric co2 is the prime reason our planet is warming. The evidence for that is nebulous at best, and ignores the more likely factors which include, among others, that the planet is simply in a warming trend, which it has been for several thousand years. What disturbs me, Jon, is that I haven't seen anything from you about cleaning up the planet. Or don't you care? Max Yeah, I don't care. Simple isn't it. Does that make you feel better? I'm sure we wouldn't want to disturb you. g -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
"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... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message Yeah, I don't care. Simple isn't it. Does that make you feel better? I'm sure we wouldn't want to disturb you. g That has seemed clear for many of your posts. It appears that you only want to complain and take an unsupported and highly radical view. |
Global Warming Debunked
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. |
Global Warming Debunked
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message Yeah, I don't care. Simple isn't it. Does that make you feel better? I'm sure we wouldn't want to disturb you. g That has seemed clear for many of your posts. It appears that you only want to complain and take an unsupported and highly radical view. I was trying to make you feel better... and this is the thanks I get! Sheesh... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
... 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. 1, 2, 3, 4, ... sorry I'm bored. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message Yeah, I don't care. Simple isn't it. Does that make you feel better? I'm sure we wouldn't want to disturb you. g That has seemed clear for many of your posts. It appears that you only want to complain and take an unsupported and highly radical view. I was trying to make you feel better... and this is the thanks I get! Sheesh... You're asking for thanks for those personal attacks? If you use a couple of neurons, you can probably figure out those two special words I'm thinking of.... |
Global Warming Debunked
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message Yeah, I don't care. Simple isn't it. Does that make you feel better? I'm sure we wouldn't want to disturb you. g That has seemed clear for many of your posts. It appears that you only want to complain and take an unsupported and highly radical view. I was trying to make you feel better... and this is the thanks I get! Sheesh... You're asking for thanks for those personal attacks? If you use a couple of neurons, you can probably figure out those two special words I'm thinking of.... Seems like you are. I never said you were a dope. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth. While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to miss the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause and those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort or another. Its all about following the money. The GW enthusiasts have created a panic against which they can get gov't grants to do research $$ and contracts to develop solutions to the synthesized problem. GW has been with us for the past 18,000 years. So which factory or auto emission started that warming trend before the Egyptians figured out which way to align the pyramids? CO2 levels are rising. That's what happens when it gets warmer and the bacteria get more active. The fact that our current CO2 levels "appear" greater than those in the ice core samples is easily explained by the outgassing of CO2 from the ice over thousands of years. The same reason carbonated water goes flat if its left in the glass for hours. Glacial retreat? That's what happens when the earth emerges from an ice age. 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. On this you and I agree completely. In fact I couldn't agree more. But please don't expect me to believe that the increase in atmospheric co2 is the prime reason our planet is warming. The evidence for that is nebulous at best, and ignores the more likely factors which include, among others, that the planet is simply in a warming trend, which it has been for several thousand years. What disturbs me, Jon, is that I haven't seen anything from you about cleaning up the planet. Or don't you care? Max 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. Also, I volunteer with a environmentally oriented group, which does local cleanups of the bay.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Global Warming Debunked
Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Cessna 310" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message Yeah, I don't care. Simple isn't it. Does that make you feel better? I'm sure we wouldn't want to disturb you. g That has seemed clear for many of your posts. It appears that you only want to complain and take an unsupported and highly radical view. I was trying to make you feel better... and this is the thanks I get! Sheesh... You're asking for thanks for those personal attacks? If you use a couple of neurons, you can probably figure out those two special words I'm thinking of.... Seems like you are. I never said you were a dope. Hardly asking for your thanks. That doesn't seem worth much. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com