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

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics.


The keyword in all these exchanges is "religious fervor", which is what
this whole matter has become. Just look at the responses to the post and
you can see how much of a religion it has become, complete with us heretics
but, to date, lacking the burning-at-the-stakes and public floggings, which
may come at any time.

Science no long matters....obviously....MONEY does.

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

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:34:27 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics.


The keyword in all these exchanges is "religious fervor", which is what
this whole matter has become. Just look at the responses to the post and
you can see how much of a religion it has become, complete with us heretics
but, to date, lacking the burning-at-the-stakes and public floggings, which
may come at any time.

Science no long matters....obviously....MONEY does.

Only in your world. I left from Frankfurt airport on Saturday. The guy
next to me in the queue was busy telling his family, literally: "We
own the World". Guess what accent he had.. We left our equipment
parked at a sewage farm in the heat and flies..