Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:07:40 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.
From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H
It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.

True. But the liberal fall back is to compare to Bush. Can't figure
out why they don't just discuss his behavior as is.

Embarrassed?
--

John H

And the conservative fallback is to blame it on Clinton.

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:07:40 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.
From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H
It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.

True. But the liberal fall back is to compare to Bush. Can't figure
out why they don't just discuss his behavior as is.

Embarrassed?
--

John H

Probably because even the libs can't figure out his bizarre moves.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:17:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:07:40 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.
From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H
It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.

True. But the liberal fall back is to compare to Bush. Can't figure
out why they don't just discuss his behavior as is.

Embarrassed?
--

John H

And the conservative fallback is to blame it on Clinton.

Conservative fallback to what? Bush isn't in office, so it's for sure
no one is trying to defend him.

Besides, is that rationale supposed to explain Obama's behavior?
--

John H

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:19:31 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:07:40 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.
From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H
It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.

True. But the liberal fall back is to compare to Bush. Can't figure
out why they don't just discuss his behavior as is.

Embarrassed?
--

John H

Probably because even the libs can't figure out his bizarre moves.

I *think* that since Clinton believed Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction, anything Obama does is OK.
--

John H

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:17:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:07:40 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.
From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H
It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.
True. But the liberal fall back is to compare to Bush. Can't figure
out why they don't just discuss his behavior as is.

Embarrassed?
--

John H
And the conservative fallback is to blame it on Clinton.

Conservative fallback to what? Bush isn't in office, so it's for sure
no one is trying to defend him.

Besides, is that rationale supposed to explain Obama's behavior?
--

John H

The only person who can explain Obama's behavior is Obama.

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:19:31 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:07:40 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.
From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H
It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.
True. But the liberal fall back is to compare to Bush. Can't figure
out why they don't just discuss his behavior as is.

Embarrassed?
--

John H
Probably because even the libs can't figure out his bizarre moves.

I *think* that since Clinton believed Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction, anything Obama does is OK.
--

John H

There you go, that's the conservative way! It IS Clinton's fault!

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:04:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:17:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:07:40 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.
From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H
It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.
True. But the liberal fall back is to compare to Bush. Can't figure
out why they don't just discuss his behavior as is.

Embarrassed?
--

John H
And the conservative fallback is to blame it on Clinton.

Conservative fallback to what? Bush isn't in office, so it's for sure
no one is trying to defend him.

Besides, is that rationale supposed to explain Obama's behavior?
--

John H

The only person who can explain Obama's behavior is Obama.

Now that's the damn truth!
--

John H

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:05:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:


I *think* that since Clinton believed Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction, anything Obama does is OK.
--

John H

There you go, that's the conservative way! It IS Clinton's fault!

:)
--

John H

NotNow wrote:
Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about
a guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html


Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and
Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama
Canal revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band
wagon at that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free"
when the republican politicians are forcing everyone in
their party to be darned near militant in telling everyone
that global warming just isn't happening despite all of the
data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has
warmed significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming
is a reality. Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that
recent years, the 1990s, and the 20th century are all the
warmest, on a global basis, of the last 600, and most likely
1200 years. It appears that the global warming of the last
century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global
warming. Earth has heated and cooled for it whole life. What
did man do to cause the last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago?
The mini ice age 500 years ago? And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the
past. We are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why
the right's insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does
not enter into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a
building for me. You would ignore codes, etc as they are based
on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses,
strains, etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy,
you'd want me to design by a standard that was a few million
years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be
designing to codes at are as first written. They would not be
changed because of history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.

The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific
problem, not problems in general. As far as the topic I was
discussing, history does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the
cataclysmic events that shaped the climate at a given point in time
doesn't matter anymore. What does a history that involves things
like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting earth, etc. have to do
with man made pollution and it's affects on climate that is
occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does? --

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!

Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.

Finally you get it.. Now I can go back to work

Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest
about a guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html


Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and
Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama
Canal revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band
wagon at that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice
free" when the republican politicians are forcing everyone
in their party to be darned near militant in telling
everyone that global warming just isn't happening despite
all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth
has warmed significantly over the last 140 years; Global
Warming is a reality. Multiple paleoclimatic studies
indicate that recent years, the 1990s, and the 20th century
are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the last 600, and
most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global warming
of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global
warming. Earth has heated and cooled for it whole life.
What did man do to cause the last Ice Age about 15,000 years
ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago? And the warming
afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in
the past. We are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's
why the right's insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does
not enter into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a
building for me. You would ignore codes, etc as they are based
on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses,
strains, etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy,
you'd want me to design by a standard that was a few million
years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be
designing to codes at are as first written. They would not be
changed because of history. Exactly the opposite of what you
stated.

The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific
problem, not problems in general. As far as the topic I was
discussing, history does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the
cataclysmic events that shaped the climate at a given point in
time doesn't matter anymore. What does a history that involves
things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting earth, etc.
have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on climate
that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does? --

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!

Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.

Finally you get it.. Now I can go back to work

Back to work? A liberal socialist wouldn't be caught dead uttering those
words.