"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so
only if their names were not released.

Well, that's not an option.

The U.S. government has NO right to keep secrets from U.S. citizens,
with a few noteworthy exceptions.

It is NOT legal, under the Constitution, to declare a policy or policy
meeting or policy-makers names secret, just as a matter of personal
preference.

It is an option and has been upheld as a right of the executive branch.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
If you can't get the planners for our energy suppliers to come talk
with you unless their names are withheld from the press then what do
you do.

Get other planners who will. Do you think there isn't a long long list
of people, some of whom are not necessarily motivated by profit over
patriotism, who would like to give high-level advice on national
energy policy?

One of the problems we have is that there aren't any others. There are
too few home grown energy suppliers in this country, many of our top
suppliers especially in the N.E. are owned by foreign companies who
don't want us energy independent. That limits the list to a select
few energy suppliers.

Again, the names and content of the meeting were kept secret because of
the partisan politics being played in this country. Look at your
reaction for instance...


Jeff, the problem is that the reasons for the secrecy were so obvious.
And, the secrecy benefited nobody except the participants. You may also
be assuming that I and others have a problem with secrecy in general,
but that's not true. When it benefits the country as a whole, I agree
with it. But, in this instance, it clearly did not.


Bull**** as to only Republicans being secret.about their meetings. How
about Hillary and Clinton's health plan meetings. SECRET! Even a
Federal Judge slammed them over it.

Well, that's wrong, too. I wonder why a federal judge didn't slam your
president over HIS secret meetings. Do you wonder?


He is also YOUR president! I voted for Badnarik.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so
only if their names were not released.

Well, that's not an option.

The U.S. government has NO right to keep secrets from U.S. citizens,
with a few noteworthy exceptions.

It is NOT legal, under the Constitution, to declare a policy or
policy meeting or policy-makers names secret, just as a matter of
personal preference.

It is an option and has been upheld as a right of the executive
branch.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
If you can't get the planners for our energy suppliers to come talk
with you unless their names are withheld from the press then what do
you do.

Get other planners who will. Do you think there isn't a long long
list of people, some of whom are not necessarily motivated by profit
over patriotism, who would like to give high-level advice on national
energy policy?

One of the problems we have is that there aren't any others. There
are too few home grown energy suppliers in this country, many of our
top suppliers especially in the N.E. are owned by foreign companies
who don't want us energy independent. That limits the list to a
select few energy suppliers.

Again, the names and content of the meeting were kept secret because
of the partisan politics being played in this country. Look at your
reaction for instance...


Jeff, the problem is that the reasons for the secrecy were so obvious.
And, the secrecy benefited nobody except the participants. You may also
be assuming that I and others have a problem with secrecy in general,
but that's not true. When it benefits the country as a whole, I agree
with it. But, in this instance, it clearly did not.


Bull**** as to only Republicans being secret.about their meetings. How
about Hillary and Clinton's health plan meetings. SECRET! Even a
Federal Judge slammed them over it.

Well, that's wrong, too. I wonder why a federal judge didn't slam your
president over HIS secret meetings. Do you wonder?


He is also YOUR president! I voted for Badnarik.


No. I disowned the chimp within 15 seconds of his opening his mouth on TV
for the first time. If he were my son, I would've smothered him with a
pillow and started over.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so
only if their names were not released.

Well, that's not an option.

The U.S. government has NO right to keep secrets from U.S. citizens,
with a few noteworthy exceptions.

It is NOT legal, under the Constitution, to declare a policy or
policy meeting or policy-makers names secret, just as a matter of
personal preference.

It is an option and has been upheld as a right of the executive
branch.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
If you can't get the planners for our energy suppliers to come talk
with you unless their names are withheld from the press then what
do you do.

Get other planners who will. Do you think there isn't a long long
list of people, some of whom are not necessarily motivated by profit
over patriotism, who would like to give high-level advice on
national energy policy?

One of the problems we have is that there aren't any others. There
are too few home grown energy suppliers in this country, many of our
top suppliers especially in the N.E. are owned by foreign companies
who don't want us energy independent. That limits the list to a
select few energy suppliers.

Again, the names and content of the meeting were kept secret because
of the partisan politics being played in this country. Look at your
reaction for instance...


Jeff, the problem is that the reasons for the secrecy were so obvious.
And, the secrecy benefited nobody except the participants. You may
also be assuming that I and others have a problem with secrecy in
general, but that's not true. When it benefits the country as a whole,
I agree with it. But, in this instance, it clearly did not.


Bull**** as to only Republicans being secret.about their meetings. How
about Hillary and Clinton's health plan meetings. SECRET! Even a
Federal Judge slammed them over it.

Well, that's wrong, too. I wonder why a federal judge didn't slam your
president over HIS secret meetings. Do you wonder?


He is also YOUR president! I voted for Badnarik.


No. I disowned the chimp within 15 seconds of his opening his mouth on TV
for the first time. If he were my son, I would've smothered him with a
pillow and started over.


Don't work that way.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did
so only if their names were not released.

Well, that's not an option.

The U.S. government has NO right to keep secrets from U.S.
citizens, with a few noteworthy exceptions.

It is NOT legal, under the Constitution, to declare a policy or
policy meeting or policy-makers names secret, just as a matter of
personal preference.

It is an option and has been upheld as a right of the executive
branch.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
If you can't get the planners for our energy suppliers to come
talk with you unless their names are withheld from the press then
what do you do.

Get other planners who will. Do you think there isn't a long long
list of people, some of whom are not necessarily motivated by
profit over patriotism, who would like to give high-level advice on
national energy policy?

One of the problems we have is that there aren't any others. There
are too few home grown energy suppliers in this country, many of our
top suppliers especially in the N.E. are owned by foreign companies
who don't want us energy independent. That limits the list to a
select few energy suppliers.

Again, the names and content of the meeting were kept secret because
of the partisan politics being played in this country. Look at your
reaction for instance...


Jeff, the problem is that the reasons for the secrecy were so
obvious. And, the secrecy benefited nobody except the participants.
You may also be assuming that I and others have a problem with
secrecy in general, but that's not true. When it benefits the country
as a whole, I agree with it. But, in this instance, it clearly did
not.


Bull**** as to only Republicans being secret.about their meetings.
How about Hillary and Clinton's health plan meetings. SECRET! Even a
Federal Judge slammed them over it.

Well, that's wrong, too. I wonder why a federal judge didn't slam your
president over HIS secret meetings. Do you wonder?


He is also YOUR president! I voted for Badnarik.


No. I disowned the chimp within 15 seconds of his opening his mouth on TV
for the first time. If he were my son, I would've smothered him with a
pillow and started over.


Don't work that way.


Yeah it does. I didn't agree with everything his father said or did, but I
respected the man. This one's nothing but a cardboard silhouette propped up
by his keepers. Not mine.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:01:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

No. I disowned the chimp within 15 seconds of his opening his mouth on TV
for the first time. If he were my son, I would've smothered him with a
pillow and started over.

You liberals are just so violent.

tsk tsk... :)


Gotta keep up with the competition, ya know?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in
journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject. Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't. But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Can I play "the stupid card" here? Here we go: duh drool "CO2 is a
natural thing. Plants make it. It can't be a bad thing regardless of
quantity".


Ouch!! It looks like you need to do a bit more research on this Doug as you
'know not what you say'. 'Nuf said as I don't want to embarrass you any
further. ;-)

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in
journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read
some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject.
Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't.
But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a
few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Can I play "the stupid card" here? Here we go: duh drool "CO2 is a
natural thing. Plants make it. It can't be a bad thing regardless of
quantity".


Ouch!! It looks like you need to do a bit more research on this Doug as
you 'know not what you say'. 'Nuf said as I don't want to embarrass you
any further. ;-)


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!!!!!!!!! Next contestant, please.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in
journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read
some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject.
Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't.
But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a
few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Can I play "the stupid card" here? Here we go: duh drool "CO2 is a
natural thing. Plants make it. It can't be a bad thing regardless of
quantity".


Ouch!! It looks like you need to do a bit more research on this Doug as
you 'know not what you say'. 'Nuf said as I don't want to embarrass you
any further. ;-)


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!!!!!!!!! Next contestant, please.


LMAO!!!! So are you now saying man *is not* the cause of global warming?

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in
journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read
some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject.
Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't.
But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a
few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics) contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Can I play "the stupid card" here? Here we go: duh drool "CO2 is a
natural thing. Plants make it. It can't be a bad thing regardless of
quantity".


Ouch!! It looks like you need to do a bit more research on this Doug as
you 'know not what you say'. 'Nuf said as I don't want to embarrass
you any further. ;-)


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!!!!!!!!! Next contestant, please.


LMAO!!!! So are you now saying man *is not* the cause of global warming?


No. I'm saying you're an idiot. Get off the stage NOW. NEXT!!!!!!!!!!

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Black Dog wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
news
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:


I have seen almost NO science about climate change. Even in
journals
like Nature, climatology has become polluted by politics.


Perhaps you should read some!


I get Nature's email alerts and abstracts. I would love to "read
some"
science - if it was there. Like I said - I see no science, just
politics.


I take it you've read everything ever published on the subject.
Right?


Sure, I'm doing my PhD on climate change. No, of course I haven't.
But
what I have read (and I am a geologist by training, so I have read a
few
excruciatingly boring journals on earth-science type topics)
contains
mostly bad science and much more bad politics.

such as? Do you really think that, when a single electric generating
plant spews 13 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly,
compounded by all of the plants in the world, that that can have
nothing but a detrimental affect on the environment???



Can I play "the stupid card" here? Here we go: duh drool "CO2 is a
natural thing. Plants make it. It can't be a bad thing regardless of
quantity".


Ouch!! It looks like you need to do a bit more research on this Doug
as you 'know not what you say'. 'Nuf said as I don't want to
embarrass you any further. ;-)


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!!!!!!!!! Next contestant, please.


LMAO!!!! So are you now saying man *is not* the cause of global warming?


No. I'm saying you're an idiot. Get off the stage NOW. NEXT!!!!!!!!!!


LOL. So that is your response? Calling me an idiot? ROTF!!

Try learning about and researching a subject before pretending to be an
expert on it as you do seem to try to come across as quite the expert on
*most* everything here............quite an amazing feat Doug.

My 12 year old nephew is available for tutoring lessons on greenhouse gas
emissions if you need to hire him. ;-)

Have a great Easter weekend Doug.