On 7/30/2012 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:52:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Al Gore and Michael Moore are idiots; why be a contra-idiot just for
the sake of opposing them?

What about all of the scientific community that were poo-pooed just to
thumb the collective skeptical nose at the above mentioned idiots.
Where is the logic and science in that?

As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

There have been past instances of global warming, but that is another
logical argument, altogether. Man has never been is sufficient numbers
with the capability to create so much heat and affect the global
atmosphere as he does now. That is a wildcard that is truly scary, in
large part because we don't understand the dynamics.

Now, maybe we can pull our collective heads out of the sand and see
what, if anything, can be done. If we have reached a critical tipping
point, all that is left is Armageddon and survival of the fittest.
Perhaps the Earth and its inhabitant, are more resilient. Fact is, we
just don't have a clue, one way or the other.


You can help by lowering your thermostat this winter.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:03:59 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/30/12 9:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.



Aren't you a die-hard skeptic because of your investments in fossil fuel?

===

Not at all. As a matter of fact I've always been an advocate of
alternative energy strategies because I regard it as the right thing
to do for several different reasons.

Well, that's not a far right way of thinking!

I'm in a nearly ideal climate for solar power and will probably end up
with panels on my roof one of these days as the total system cost
continues to decrease and reliability/longevity increases. Fossil
fuel is still a good investment however and I'll dedicate some
significant percentage of assets to it as long as the returns are
there. There's only so much oil in the ground and it will continue to
be valuable as a lubricant and industrial feedstock. Additionally,
natural gas could turn out to be the ultimate clean fuel as fuel cell
technology improves and diesel to gas conversion becomes more common.

And neither is that!

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:38:26 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

I've been something of a concerned skeptic regarding CO2 emissions and
greenhouse effect on climate change. There's been a fair amount of
hard evidence that the earth is warming up but there has been plenty
of room for doubt whether or not the cause was man made or not.

This new study is significant for a number of reasons: 1) The
scientists conducting the study have heretofore regarded themselves as
skeptics; and 2) Much of their funding comes from the petroleum
industry, in fact, a particularly conservative part of the industry.
In short, this is not good news and we should pay attention regardless
of political beliefs.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...s/article.html

Excerpts from the findings:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause."

"Despite the special interest of their funders, BEST has made it
clear, both on their web site and in the results they've come to, that
funding sources will not play a role in the results of their research,
and that they "will be presented with full transparency."

"Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for
the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about
1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes."

More he

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1


For me, global warming has always been obvious and I always thought
Masters was a consummate idiot for constantly pumping out little
papers that denied it. I'm glad at least one of those trees has
stepped forward and he now acknowledges there might be a forest.

I always thought that man had caused SOME global warming, but I'm
still a bit skeptical that nearly 100% is caused by man. I would have
placed the figure considerably lower than that.

What this reversal does is cast the light of doubt on all of the
previously petroleum funded studies and their hack jobs against the
vast majority of scientists that have seen this all along.

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

On 7/30/12 2:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:20:58 -0400, wrote:

As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy.

The pentagon has a plan for everything. I am sure they have planned
for alien invasion scenarios too.



Anything to keep sucking as much as it can off the taxpayers.

--
I'm a liberal because militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying
religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy just doesn't work for me.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

On 7/30/2012 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:48:21 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/30/12 2:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:20:58 -0400, wrote:

As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy.

The pentagon has a plan for everything. I am sure they have planned
for alien invasion scenarios too.



Anything to keep sucking as much as it can off the taxpayers.

We would be ****ed if they didn't have a plan.


And he'd find a way to blame it on GWB.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

On 7/30/2012 8:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.


Don't worry LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) is on the way!
Mikek

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.