"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:c4to1659q5iib0kf3j979i6rn51av68a1s@4ax. com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is
more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings
are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more
closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if
we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."


You should try it sometime. It'll improve your outlook.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:38:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening
where
my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no
problem
with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never
heard
of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license.


I mean the full body x-ray scanner.

As for D/L
http://gathergoget.com/

Click YES on Have you ever changed your name

No problem with the scanner.

I still think it's reasonable (thanks for the link) to have to prove who
you
are to renew your license. It's not much of a burden. I'd imagine that if
you're divorced or married and you changed your name, you'd have those
documents. Why is this a big deal? Does this somehow prove terrorists won?


I guess that means you have never had a messy divorce. I guarantee
you, most of those ****ed off wives threw away their marriage
certificates, burned the pictures and don't really want to think about
it anymore.

As for the scanner, is there a health issue? We won't know for 20
years if any of the other hazards are any indication, even if you
don't mind being electronically strip searched. I assume the most
interesting people will be saved on cell phone cameras to be laughed
at later or posted n the internet.
I am not even happy about having to take my shoes off. Every time I go
to an airport I know the terrorists won. We are terrorized or we
wouldn't put up with this ****.

The messy divorces that I know about, my friend framed her final papers.

Try different socks....

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:38:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening
where
my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no
problem
with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never
heard
of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license.


I mean the full body x-ray scanner.

As for D/L
http://gathergoget.com/

Click YES on Have you ever changed your name

No problem with the scanner.

I still think it's reasonable (thanks for the link) to have to prove who
you
are to renew your license. It's not much of a burden. I'd imagine that if
you're divorced or married and you changed your name, you'd have those
documents. Why is this a big deal? Does this somehow prove terrorists
won?


I guess that means you have never had a messy divorce. I guarantee
you, most of those ****ed off wives threw away their marriage
certificates, burned the pictures and don't really want to think about
it anymore.

As for the scanner, is there a health issue? We won't know for 20
years if any of the other hazards are any indication, even if you
don't mind being electronically strip searched. I assume the most
interesting people will be saved on cell phone cameras to be laughed
at later or posted n the internet.
I am not even happy about having to take my shoes off. Every time I go
to an airport I know the terrorists won. We are terrorized or we
wouldn't put up with this ****.

The messy divorces that I know about, my friend framed her final papers.

Try different socks....


Your divorse wasn't messy? I assume you paid the poor guy off then.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:07:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

As for the scanner, is there a health issue? We won't know for 20
years if any of the other hazards are any indication, even if you
don't mind being electronically strip searched. I assume the most
interesting people will be saved on cell phone cameras to be laughed
at later or posted n the internet.
I am not even happy about having to take my shoes off. Every time I go
to an airport I know the terrorists won. We are terrorized or we
wouldn't put up with this ****.

The messy divorces that I know about, my friend framed her final papers.

It is the marriage certificate that may be hard to come up with., :-)

Heh...


Try different socks....

Socks?

If you're upset about taking off your shoes.

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:38:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening
where
my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no
problem
with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never
heard
of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license.


I mean the full body x-ray scanner.

As for D/L
http://gathergoget.com/

Click YES on Have you ever changed your name

No problem with the scanner.

I still think it's reasonable (thanks for the link) to have to prove who
you
are to renew your license. It's not much of a burden. I'd imagine that
if
you're divorced or married and you changed your name, you'd have those
documents. Why is this a big deal? Does this somehow prove terrorists
won?


I guess that means you have never had a messy divorce. I guarantee
you, most of those ****ed off wives threw away their marriage
certificates, burned the pictures and don't really want to think about
it anymore.

As for the scanner, is there a health issue? We won't know for 20
years if any of the other hazards are any indication, even if you
don't mind being electronically strip searched. I assume the most
interesting people will be saved on cell phone cameras to be laughed
at later or posted n the internet.
I am not even happy about having to take my shoes off. Every time I go
to an airport I know the terrorists won. We are terrorized or we
wouldn't put up with this ****.

The messy divorces that I know about, my friend framed her final papers.

Try different socks....


Your divorse wasn't messy? I assume you paid the poor guy off then.


Sorry, no divorce here. Oh, you were talking about your marriage? I didn't
realize you lived in a place where two men can marry.

In article ,
says...


You writing a book or something?






Let's see...you have no kids, no boat, no job...is that about it for you?

Your boat is a driveway queen.

On 6/20/10 6:28 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...


You writing a book or something?






Let's see...you have no kids, no boat, no job...is that about it for you?

Your boat is a driveway queen.


You don't have a boat, either.

Harry wrote:
On 6/20/10 8:24 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 6/20/10 6:22 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is
more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can
stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is
where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human
beings
are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know
if we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about
dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate
solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do
agree it
is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you
start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more
closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it
is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I
suppose if
we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce
CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific
American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still
tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al
Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create
another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to
prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html


If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports
would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do
anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a
hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others
test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could
actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen
after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could
scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not
much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly
correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."



Well, then, you apparently never had that activity, since you don't
have
kids.
Apparently your logical thought processes stopped developing when you
were a
three year old.




I don't recall your ever mentioning you were a father, or that you had
children. I suppose to nervous nellies like you, revelation of such
information would be considered...dangerous. Sort of like saying what
you did for a living, or what boat you have, et cetera.




From what I've read, your children has disowned you, you have lied
about your employment, and you have fabricated lobster boats that are
in your fleet. Where do you get off demanding answers like that?