"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment
Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look
at Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K
earnings.
The Bush Administration may well be the most anti-environmental and
anti-science administration of the last 100 years. Their positions are
based upon money and crazed religious beliefs, not on the common weal
or science.

Care to offer some examples Krause?

No need to waste any of my time...the examples are everywhere.


In other words, you can't. LOL!


No, Jim. In my exact words: the examples are everywhere. Perhaps if you
weren't so intellectually lazy, you could find some.

--


More like.......if you had some proof you would be willing to post it.

That old dog of yours don't hunt anymore Krause.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:47:45 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


Care to offer some examples.....


snips
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0703-10.htm
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000142.php
http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroo....vtml?id=28972
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2...3-09-23-11.asp
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4528605
http://www.2020vision.org/resources/vp_spring2001.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090101533.html

...and it goes on and on and on......


Yes it does Gene......with biased reporting and anti Bush web sites.

How about some solid proff that is unbiased?

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

" *JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are
no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?


I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have
disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties*
have
great respect for the environment?



It is just another symptom


" There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists.
They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please
don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it
again harder to prove that they were right the first time"




I can see the truth now.

" *JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment
Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the
greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets.
Look
at Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K
earnings.
The Bush Administration may well be the most anti-environmental and
anti-science administration of the last 100 years. Their positions
are
based upon money and crazed religious beliefs, not on the common
weal
or science.

Care to offer some examples Krause?

No need to waste any of my time...the examples are everywhere.


In other words, you can't. LOL!


No, Jim. In my exact words: the examples are everywhere. Perhaps if you
weren't so intellectually lazy, you could find some.

--


More like.......if you had some proof you would be willing to post it.

That old dog of yours don't hunt anymore Krause.



"Narcissists are naive and vulnerable, pathetic really, no matter how
arrogant and forceful their words or demeanor. They have pretty good
reasons
for their paranoia and cynicism, their sneakiness, evasiveness,
prevarications.

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:09:23 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote:


For hundreds of millions years the planet had a considerably milder climate.


That is just stupid.

There have been four major "ice ages" in the last 2 million years. The
last "ice age" began about 70,000 years ago, and ended 10,000 years
ago.

Please don't post any more of this foolishness until you bone up on
natural history, it makes you look foolish.


I suggest you do the same -- you know -- bone up on natural history
before making foolish posts... Look past the Pleistocene and the
Pliocene, in fact skip the whole Tertiary era and go back to the
Mesozoic. You will find periods of hundreds of millions years when the
Earth's environment was much warmer than now. Must have been all those
dinosaur farts that caused the global warming then :-)

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:26:55 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote:

We really do not have scientific evidence that the average temperature
has
risen or that the ocean levels have risen. For every location that shows
a
rise in either there are just as many that show declines. Global warming
does not have any real science behind it. There are no long term climate
prediction models that are any more than pure speculation.


You assertions are patently untrue and unsupported.

[snip]

Don't argue with our very own Sherlock Holmes.

What Gene cant wow you with stats and facts, he will muddle you with more
spew, than the boy who call wolf.

Bottom line...don't argue with Mr. Kearns...he is never wrong.

--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:26:54 -0500, Black Dog
wrote:


Gene Kearns wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:09:23 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote:



For hundreds of millions years the planet had a considerably milder climate.


That is just stupid.

There have been four major "ice ages" in the last 2 million years. The
last "ice age" began about 70,000 years ago, and ended 10,000 years
ago.

Please don't post any more of this foolishness until you bone up on
natural history, it makes you look foolish.


I suggest you do the same -- you know -- bone up on natural history
before making foolish posts... Look past the Pleistocene and the
Pliocene, in fact skip the whole Tertiary era and go back to the
Mesozoic. You will find periods of hundreds of millions years when the
Earth's environment was much warmer than now. Must have been all those
dinosaur farts that caused the global warming then :-)


First of all, the Tertiary was a period not an era. I never adopted
the position that the earth has not been warmer before nor that it has
not been cooler before, either.

Sorry, you are right - it is period. But read what you said - the OP
said the earth had been warmer for hundreds of millions of years and you
said that was just plain stupid. But it's not stupid - it's true. We
Canadians wouldn't have the known largest oil reserves on the planet
(yes, folks, we got more of this **** than the Saudi's)if it weren't for
the fact that what we now call "the prairies" hadn't been "the sea".


We are likely not the sole cause of global warming, but you'd have to
be sticking your head into the sand to believe that we don't influence
it. Our global sole source of heat is the sun. For millions of years,
this energy has been stored in things like oil and coal. Modern man
has found a way to turn these millions of years of energy into heat to
serve him. Do you really think this isn't a net increase in available
heat energy? Where do you suppose all of that heat goes?

I know where it is. I can see the thermometer in my car climbing by
three degrees every time I drive from my house in the country into the city.



Do you think that major climate swings haven't had an effect on the
level of the oceans? Or that life (like the dinosaurs) has survived..
or not? If you want to go back to the Mesozoic Era, do you really
think that we can compare weather in Gondwanaland (the super
continent) to the weather that we have today with the seven current
much smaller and more spread out continents? You can't be so silly as
to try to argue this apples and oranges position.

I never said any of that. See paragraph 1. But are you saying we don't
understand the climate well enough to compare Gondwanaland and today?
That certainly is the truth. And yet "climate scientists" do so all the
time.


The OP also made some statements that you'd like to support....
scientifically, of course:

No, I wouldn't. What I find so frustrating about the whole climate
change/global warming/greenhouse effect/whatever you want to call it
this week it is the complete and total LACK OF SCIENCE of both sides.
It is an emotional and political debate - for example, you can't resist
name calling and probably conclude I am a "right winger" (which is funny
because, outside of this issue, I'm probably waaay more of leftie than you)


"We have sampled the tiniest fraction of the planet."
Really? At least a quarter of the globe is inhabited!
We have a tiny sample upon which to base our climate models. 130 years
of accurate temperatures over a very limited part of the globe. Even if
every inhabitant was out there with his little themometer, it's still
a small sample.


"We can't even predict the weather next month ..."
Seems we hit that hurricane season on the nose!

This is a fair criticism of climate modelling. We can't accurately
predict tomorrow, or next week or next month. (Yes, I understand all
about chaos theory). It's just that in MOST of the sciences I've been
involved with, models were useful things for, well, modeling. You do
not take predictions made by a model and treat them as data. Data is
something that goes IN to a model, not OUT. I could create, for
example, a mathmatical model that describes the chemical reactions that
occur as body of magma cools. I could use it to figure out if there is
any possiblity of, say, finding gold in the core of Mt.St.Helens. But
my model won't tell me where it is or even for sure it is there. Only
drilling will tell me that. My problem with many environmentalists is
that they treat the climate models as if they were drill cores or maps,
not a mathmatical construct that reveals a possibilty.


"And global warming is pseudoscience."
So, we've agreed that this has happened more than once, but it never
was real?


Like I said, emotion and politics. Not science.

Of course climate change is real. It happens ALL the time, always has,
always will. Can we do anything about it? I don't know. I certainly
don't condone spewing toxic waste into the air. The rates of asthma in
children is reason enough to stop that. I worry a bit about
concentrating too much CO2 (harmless and necessary to life on earth) and
not enough on mecury and sulfur and other very nasty stuff to breathe.

In 1985, as an undergrad geology student, I attended a lecture on "The
Greenhouse Effect" as it was known in those days. Lots of maps and
graphs and models. Perhaps I wouldn't be quite the sceptic I am today
if any of the dire consequences predicted at that time had come to pass.
My sister in Nova Scotia should be under water, along with most of the
eastern sea board. Refugees flooding in from the Maldives and other
barely-above-sea-level places. The model I saw said it was going to
happen by 1997. By now I was planing to open that Club Med on Baffin
Island. Hasn't happened yet.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:23:40 GMT, Don White wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:



Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment


Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.

Which, Harry was quick to point out, was what Harry made 25 or 30 years ago. Did
you miss that, Don.

Does your comment Bert apply to Harry as well? Or were you being a little
hypocritical?

--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:23:40 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:



Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment


Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.

Which, Harry was quick to point out, was what Harry made 25 or 30 years
ago. Did
you miss that, Don.

Does your comment Bert apply to Harry as well? Or were you being a
little
hypocritical?

--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

Yep. He said he earned $205,000/year (current USD) as a *senior* executive
in 1976.

How old would you guess Harry is John? Is he older than 60 or in his mid
50's?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:17:10 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:23:40 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:



Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment


Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.

Which, Harry was quick to point out, was what Harry made 25 or 30 years
ago. Did
you miss that, Don.

Does your comment Bert apply to Harry as well? Or were you being a
little
hypocritical?

--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

Yep. He said he earned $205,000/year (current USD) as a *senior* executive
in 1976.

How old would you guess Harry is John? Is he older than 60 or in his mid
50's?


I'd guess older than 60.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]