On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:08:50 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:55:47 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Charlie, as the originator of this particular thread, I rule that Cessna's
posts have been entirely on-topic.

Your most recent contributions are slightly off-topic, but I find them
sufficiently entertaining that they might as well be considered on-topic
also.

Carry on.


Your original post was completely off topic for this newsgroup. That's
just
another FACT that you choose to ignore. If this is the way you want this
newsgroup to evolve, I will be more than happy to start lots of off topic
threads to assist you in your endeavors. I may even cross post them to
gain more
impact for your project. Maybe others can also join in and start off topic
threads. That would be GREAT!

CWM

Aw, c'mon, Charlie. You need to go sailing as badly as I do. Unfortunately,
that option isn't open to me for another few weeks. The most I can hope to
do until then is work on the boat when weather allows. But I have to
disagree that the topic is is off-topic for this newsgroup, as the outcome
of the debate could very well impact our ability to engage in this activity.


Tough luck. I have been sailing all winter at 52N. It has been very
pleasant between gales.

Charlie Morgan wrote:


You've been "advised" to stop.

CWM

Didn't know you were the undercover usenet cop. Since we will be on
water and the level of water is predicted to rise anywhere from 2" to 28
feet, this thread is completely on-topic.

You've been "advised" to use your own personal methods of thread
screening. You are completely free to read whatever you want.

Or change the channel.

Whatever....

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:34:02 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

I think the paper by this physicist has been published in the last few
weeks.


Some scientists reject current global warming theory

February 02, 2007 AD

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists,

snip
Best to use his correct name when googling..
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:22 PM:
Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that
the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its
true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the
less, a consensus.

Consensus is general agreement of all members of a particular
population.

That is only one definition, if you check a modern dictionary you'll
probably find "majority" listed as the first definition.

Usually obtained by compromise.

That might be the way of politics, not science. That would be like
saying that if half people believe in evolution, and half believe in
creationism, then the consensus is intelligent design.

Some members may not
fully agree but as part of the consensus agreement will support the
consensus opinion by not presenting an opposing opinion.

That is not what we have here on either side of the argument.


No. That is exactly what we have in the scientific community. While
there a a few high profile skeptics, as there should be, they are
often not experts in climate. Further, they have published very
little "denials" in the academic world. Here's what one survey had to
say:

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in
refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the
ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the
consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three
categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus
view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

There is one reviewer, Benny Peiser, was skeptical and tried to
reproduce this study. At first, it appeared that he had found major
flaws, but after going around for a few years, he conceded:

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of
global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of
climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due
to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

and, to be fair, he concludes with

"Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long
as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public
is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these
scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the
health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and
scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons."

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf

Charlie Morgan wrote:

I keep looking, but I can't seem to detect a point to all this quibbling. Forget
trying to disparage your opponent. Either make your case independently on it's
own merits, or shut the **** up.

game, set and match

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:34:02 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

I think the paper by this physicist has been published in the last few
weeks.


Some scientists reject current global warming theory

February 02, 2007 AD

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists,

snip
Best to use his correct name when googling..
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar


You're right, there's a misunderstanding of how he prefers to spell his
name. I was quoting the article.

the_bmac wrote:
Charlie Morgan wrote:

I keep looking, but I can't seem to detect a point to all this
quibbling. Forget
trying to disparage your opponent. Either make your case independently
on it's
own merits, or shut the **** up.

game, set and match

This is a newsgroup about boating. You have completely missed the boat.

Cessna 310 wrote in news:bZbPh.23$EN4.18
@newsfe12.lga:

The current cycle is no different than previous cycles. And there is
absolutely NO irrefutable proof that man has caused this warming.



I think all this relates to man's religious need to be to blame for
everything that happens to everything else. From a child's first trip to
whatever religious institution its parents drag it to, it is force fed
GUILT. Guilt is what all religion depends on for its subsistence.
"You're going to hell if you....." the boys in the robes tell them,
staring down on them to coerce compliance.

So, in any endeavour or encounter where something bad happens, it is that
same child, now any age up to his death, who is GUILTY of causing
whatever bad has happened. He is, obviously, guilty of some nebulous
sin, having started his car, turned up the thermostat when he was cold.
It HAS to be HIM, because all his life he's been TAUGHT it was him.

This "control" mechanism, taught by religion, is used by governments to
get compliance with governments' wishes. Crime and punishment,
association by guilt. They, too, stare down on him from their robes and
high benches for the same effect.

So, when humans, any humans so indoctrinated their entire lives, is told
what bad is happening is NOT their fault and is beyond the control of
those who have set themselves up to force the rest of us to do their
bidding, promising us protection they now cannot deliver with their
military, science, laws and religion, the indoctrinees refuse to believe
it. They go on blaming themselves for something, like Global Warming,
they didn't cause or can do nothing about.

A smarter class of blood suckers, living off the indoctrinees by force,
feed this guilt, which produces some very heavy grant money for
themselves and their pets.

Faced with irrefutable evidence it's out of control, indoctrinees pray,
as the building collapses around them.

Jeff wrote in news:avOdndTVcPgf-
:

As always, you're confused about the facts. The minimum for the
"Little Ice Age" was about 1700, while the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution was about 1760 or later. While the Industrial Revolution
was a profound change in England in the first years, it took 100 years
for it to spread around the world.


So, explain to me the DECREASE in global temperatures from 1940 to 1975
when we drove millions of the worst polluting cars in our history, used
vast amounts of coal to light and heat our homes, factories, industries.
SINCE 1975, this panic has ensued. Vast fortunes were made cleaning up
everything man is allowed to purchase....and the temperature ROSE.

It just doesn't work! It's not YOUR FAULT!

Look at the effect on the 1940-1975 temperature graph of three huge wars.
How much polllution did WW2, Korea and Vietnam introduce into the
atmosphere? The earth continued to cool, totally unconcerned with man.
There's not even a "war wiggle" in the graph. Billions of tons of
pollutants from man's massive wars....did nothing.

Larry
--

Stephen Trapani wrote in news:BiePh.96$7_3.49
@newsfe02.lga:

Bias is a very important issue
in all of science, so much so that any experiments or reasoning *must*
address bias and correct for it.


"HIV causes AIDS." A whole industry depends on it.

Unfortunately, all AIDS patients don't have HIV. In fact, the HIV
infection rates in AIDS and non-AIDS patients is almost the same. HIV is
millions of years old, unlike AIDS.

Millions of humans have HIV that never get AIDS.

It doesn't take a Nobel Prize winner to deduce from these simple facts
that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. But, now committed with big money and
reputation on the line, HIV has GOT to cause AIDS, even if it doesn't.

The same bias applies to all government-funded "science" research, which
it's not.

Noone dares to find out what causes AIDS, now. He'd never live to see
tomorrow's sun rise! Can you blame them?

We cannot afford to find a cure for any human disease producing massive
fortunes for doctors and the medical research professions....no more than
plumbers can afford to find a permanent cure for stopped up drains.