On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:13:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

I actually don't think anything we do will have an impact on global
climate
change.

Now at least that's the beginning of a more honest line of argument. If
you've got an agenda, push the merits of that agenda itself, instead of
pushing it as a false choice when compared to someone else's agenda.

I do not push planting trees as "a false choice...compared to someone
else's
agenda." I advocate planting trees as something that we should be doing,
period. But I am also not trying to force others to spend their money
doing
so -- I simply would like to encourage it. Al Gore's agenda is that of a
Chicken Little who would *impose* his agenda on the world. I do not claim
that planting trees will have a specific impact on Global Climate Change,
which I believe to be beyond the influence of humans in the large scale,
but
rather that doing so WILL offset, to a certain degree, the damage we have
done to the environment.

Come on... the evidence is there. We're a major contributor to the
warming. We can do something about it or not do something about it. If
we don't the consequences will be quite bad.

We successfully reduced the size of the holes in the ozone by direct
efforts of removing the CFCs. Are you going to claim that it was never
a problem?


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



Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody
knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the
absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the
models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and
moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global
temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

You should read
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte...-testimony.pdf

I have much more shocking reputable sites for you once you have
digested this one. :-)



Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be?
Nobody
knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the
absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the
models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady
and
moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global
temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

You should read
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte...-testimony.pdf

I have much more shocking reputable sites for you once you have
digested this one. :-)



Eric Stevens

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as
members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single
individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology.
Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political
hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic.
Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you
think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct
scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking in
public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the
expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto?

I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from
anything considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is
depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the uninformed
will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters. Absolutely
pathetic.

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al
Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as
members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single
individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology.
Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political
hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic.
Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you
think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct
scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking in
public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the
expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto?

I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from
anything considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is
depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the uninformed
will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters. Absolutely
pathetic.



Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into the
category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the uninformed"?
Rational discourse ends here.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:23 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:


"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al
Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as
members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single
individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology.
Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political
hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic.
Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you
think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct
scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking
in public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the
expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto?

I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from anything
considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is
depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the
uninformed will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters.
Absolutely pathetic.




Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into
the category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the
uninformed"? Rational discourse ends here.

I've edited your post to show the way you should have written it.

Rational discourse ends here. Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global
Warming Alarmists falls into the category of either "the gullible, the
weak minded (or) the uninformed"?

Feel free to respond to my critique of your so-called expert site. I'm
anticipating a deafening silence.

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:23 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:
Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into
the category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the
uninformed"? Rational discourse ends here.

I've edited your post to show the way you should have written it.

Rational discourse ends here. Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global
Warming Alarmists falls into the category of either "the gullible, the
weak minded (or) the uninformed"?

Feel free to respond to my critique of your so-called expert site. I'm
anticipating a deafening silence.

Actually, my post meant exactly what I intended as I wrote it. But I suppose
when you run out of arguments, restructuring others' posts is all that's
left to you.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:13:14 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

Actually, my post meant exactly what I intended as I wrote it. But I
suppose when you run out of arguments, restructuring others' posts is all
that's left to you.

hmmm....maybe I used too many words. The site you referenced is the
web-presence of a bunch of paid political hacks with a Republican odour,
financed by corporations with an agenda. Their "experts" lack formal
training in the areas they where they advocate. They exist to obfuscate
the truth and to embroil government agencies in frivolous lawsuits
whenever the interests of public safety are in conflict with big
businesses, like Dow Chemical, Monsanto, ADM, etc...

That looks like an argument to me. You still haven't responded to that.
Oh damn, I used a lot of words again...

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be?
Nobody
knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the
absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the
models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady
and
moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global
temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

You should read
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte...-testimony.pdf

I have much more shocking reputable sites for you once you have
digested this one. :-)



Eric Stevens

From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore.
All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday.

Have another look. He actually shows that Al Gore is talking
exaggerated rubbish.



Eric Stevens