On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:47:21 +0000, Larry wrote:

Jere Lull wrote in news:2007061804332927544-
jerelull@maccom:

As is Mars.

The sun's in a particularly active phase at the moment. Time will tell
which direction the trend really is.ÿ

Meanwhile, Our activities have pretty much zero effect in the grand
scheme of things.

Truth be told, most on this group have lower "carbon footprints" than
most of humanity. When we go out for a weekend, our "footprint" drops
dramatically.



Hmm....wonder how we're going to sell Mars Global Warming that will make
billions for the corporations? Can we raise a 12 oz can of Freon to $10
over it?

As to the carbon footprint, you all need to see "The Global Warming
Swindle" over on YouTube.com. These aren't conspiracy nuts. These are
some of the finest geoscientists on the planet. They're not playing
along.....

For instance, from 1940 to 1975, when we all drove such awful monster V-
8s with gooky carbs and had not paid for $5000 in pollution control
nonsense, the planet COOLED by several degrees because the sun cooled, of
course. Doesn't anyone remember the alarm bells going off that we are
going into another ice age and we're all going to freeze to death? Those
dire predictions, of course, provided us with the excuse for all the
pollution controls costing consumers trillions, the '73 oil embargo,
etc., etc., all in the name of corporate profits. Then, of course, the
sun warmed up, again, as it has for millions of years, and the propaganda
departments had to make them forget ice ages and start selling the
current line of bull**** we're all going to cook and die, Global Warming.
It became a new profit industry that's now gotten so big it has to be
true, even though it is not. Carbon dioxide went from .48 PARTS PER
MILLION to .52 PARTS PER MILLION, an infintesimally small percentage of
the gas you're breathing. The main "greenhouse gas", water vapor,
increased as the sun warmed the earth, creating larger storms and more
SELLABLE panic. Goebbles would have been very proud.

Listen to the scientists. Watch the whole video for yourselves.


This one?

"In a recent interview the Oscar winner *(Lord Puttnam, the deputy
chairman of Channel 4) criticised The Great Climate Change Swindle, a
Channel 4 documentary widely attacked for using flawed scientific
evidence to undermine the case for global warming.

He said: “I wish it hadn’t happened. My job is chairing the climate
change committee in Parliament and it’s not helpful. It’s the kind of
slightly juvenile thing that happens when you take your eye off the
ball.” "

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1873049.ece

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:47:21 +0000, Larry wrote:

Jere Lull wrote in news:2007061804332927544-
jerelull@maccom:

As is Mars.

The sun's in a particularly active phase at the moment. Time will
tell which direction the trend really is.ÿ

Meanwhile, Our activities have pretty much zero effect in the grand
scheme of things.

Truth be told, most on this group have lower "carbon footprints"
than most of humanity. When we go out for a weekend, our
"footprint" drops dramatically.



Hmm....wonder how we're going to sell Mars Global Warming that will
make billions for the corporations? Can we raise a 12 oz can of Freon
to $10 over it?

As to the carbon footprint, you all need to see "The Global Warming
Swindle" over on YouTube.com. These aren't conspiracy nuts. These
are some of the finest geoscientists on the planet. They're not
playing along.....

For instance, from 1940 to 1975, when we all drove such awful monster
V- 8s with gooky carbs and had not paid for $5000 in pollution control
nonsense, the planet COOLED by several degrees because the sun cooled,
of course. Doesn't anyone remember the alarm bells going off that we
are going into another ice age and we're all going to freeze to death?
Those dire predictions, of course, provided us with the excuse for
all the pollution controls costing consumers trillions, the '73 oil
embargo, etc., etc., all in the name of corporate profits. Then, of
course, the sun warmed up, again, as it has for millions of years, and
the propaganda departments had to make them forget ice ages and start
selling the current line of bull**** we're all going to cook and die,
Global Warming. It became a new profit industry that's now gotten so
big it has to be true, even though it is not. Carbon dioxide went
from .48 PARTS PER MILLION to .52 PARTS PER MILLION, an infintesimally
small percentage of the gas you're breathing. The main "greenhouse
gas", water vapor, increased as the sun warmed the earth, creating
larger storms and more SELLABLE panic. Goebbles would have been very
proud.

Listen to the scientists. Watch the whole video for yourselves.


This one?

"In a recent interview the Oscar winner *(Lord Puttnam, the deputy
chairman of Channel 4) criticised The Great Climate Change Swindle, a
Channel 4 documentary widely attacked for using flawed scientific
evidence to undermine the case for global warming.

He said: “I wish it hadn’t happened. My job is chairing the climate
change committee in Parliament and it’s not helpful. It’s the kind of
slightly juvenile thing that happens when you take your eye off the
ball.” "

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....tainment/tv_an
d_radio/article1873049.ece




He's part of the Global Warming Profession, a new grant-operated group
around the planet who's very existence DEPENDS on humans being the cause.
It matters not that humans aren't the cause, just that the grant money
from the public treasuries keeps pouring in....just like AIDS.

Millions of people have HIV that never get AIDS...and have for thousands
of years that we know of.
Thousands of AIDS patients die of AIDS and have NEVER had HIV....a big
percentage of AIDS victims!

But, the CDC money pot DEPENDS on AIDS being caused by HIV, which it,
obviously, is not. Money is pouring in to cure HIV. Same idea.

Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over
Lord Puttnam? The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are
irrefutable, once you get the Al Gore politics/money out of it.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:


Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over
Lord Puttnam?

Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv.

The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are
irrefutable,

********!

I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed
that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute
its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph
where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed
since.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:


Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over
Lord Puttnam?

Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv.

The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are
irrefutable,

********!

I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed
that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute
its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph
where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed
since.

You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data and
and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one side
has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics.

My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some
convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to
which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be
continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the
debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out
whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree. In the
meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:47:08 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:


Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over
Lord Puttnam?

Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv.

The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are
irrefutable,

********!

I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed
that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute
its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph
where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed
since.

You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data and
and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one side
has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics.

There is no need today to listen to the media or political parties.
You can read the iPCC reports which are fairly transparent or surf the
WWW. The orginal papers are referenced and available. From there you
can get the methods, error bars etc. The 'other' side has little but
lies and lobbyists.


My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some
convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to
which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be
continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the
debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out
whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree.

It is not about saving the planet, it is about economics, mass
emigration, wars etc.. If sea level does rise significantly it will
cost LOT's!(tm) to lose cities that we have built everywhere in the
world around ports and on flat low lying ground. It will cost (it is
estimated) Lot's Less(tm) to reduce emissions but still Lot's(tm).
Larry does not want to pay the (relatively) chickenfeed amounts to do
research that has not, so far, given the answers he wants. Go figure!

" funding both sides" The problem is "the other side" has no/few
ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation..


In the
meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot.

Right...

If you embrace the IPCC report as the unvarnished truth, then it is
inevitable that you will claim "the other side has no/few ideas worthy of
funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation." But that claim in and of
itself paints you into a very small corner from which there is no escape.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:47:08 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:


Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over
Lord Puttnam?

Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv.

The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are
irrefutable,

********!

I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed
that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute
its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph
where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed
since.

You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data
and
and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one
side
has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics.

There is no need today to listen to the media or political parties.
You can read the iPCC reports which are fairly transparent or surf the
WWW. The orginal papers are referenced and available. From there you
can get the methods, error bars etc. The 'other' side has little but
lies and lobbyists.


My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some
convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to
which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be
continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the
debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out
whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree.

It is not about saving the planet, it is about economics, mass
emigration, wars etc.. If sea level does rise significantly it will
cost LOT's!(tm) to lose cities that we have built everywhere in the
world around ports and on flat low lying ground. It will cost (it is
estimated) Lot's Less(tm) to reduce emissions but still Lot's(tm).
Larry does not want to pay the (relatively) chickenfeed amounts to do
research that has not, so far, given the answers he wants. Go figure!

" funding both sides" The problem is "the other side" has no/few
ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation..


In the
meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot.

Right...

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:52:46 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

If you embrace the IPCC report as the unvarnished truth,

I never said that. I said it was "fairly transparent"

then it is
inevitable that you will claim "the other side has no/few ideas worthy of
funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation." But that claim in and of
itself paints you into a very small corner from which there is no escape.

All the claims that people here have put forward against GW have been
shown to be untrue/outdated/uninformed/unsupported/flawed/biased, so
far. I feel sorry for them..

As it happens I am pushing the galactic cosmic ray/Forbush effect as
hard as I can to the powers that be. The evidence is weak.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ys-for-a-spin/


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:47:08 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:


Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over
Lord Puttnam?

Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv.

The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are
irrefutable,

********!

I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed
that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute
its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph
where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed
since.

You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data
and
and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one
side
has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics.

There is no need today to listen to the media or political parties.
You can read the iPCC reports which are fairly transparent or surf the
WWW. The orginal papers are referenced and available. From there you
can get the methods, error bars etc. The 'other' side has little but
lies and lobbyists.


My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some
convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to
which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be
continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the
debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out
whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree.

It is not about saving the planet, it is about economics, mass
emigration, wars etc.. If sea level does rise significantly it will
cost LOT's!(tm) to lose cities that we have built everywhere in the
world around ports and on flat low lying ground. It will cost (it is
estimated) Lot's Less(tm) to reduce emissions but still Lot's(tm).
Larry does not want to pay the (relatively) chickenfeed amounts to do
research that has not, so far, given the answers he wants. Go figure!

" funding both sides" The problem is "the other side" has no/few
ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation..


In the
meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot.

Right...

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:

The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are
irrefutable,

Svensmark? His name is mud.

http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf