|
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
Black Dog wrote: 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. It's called research....... and it's not that difficult. Try it. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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. Even our little discussions here are usually a re-hash of the same old **** and of course, the requisite name-calling and lining up with the "right" or the "left" camps. That would be fine - if it was only here - but I see it over and over again happening in the real world. You have no idea how much I hate lining up in the "right" camp on any issue and it is frankly embarrassing for me to agree with GWB in any way. But he's right about Kyoto - a failed wealth re-distribution plan which has had absolutely NO effect. Every single country that signed onto it has increased their emissions. But here I am talking politics, when the subject was climate . . . |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
basskisser wrote:
Black Dog wrote: 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. It's called research....... and it's not that difficult. Try it. I'm quite familiar with research. I've been paid quite well much of my adult life to do it. BTW - googling "climate change", is not research, unless you are a 12 year old with a science project. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"Black Dog" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Black Dog wrote: 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. It's called research....... and it's not that difficult. Try it. I'm quite familiar with research. I've been paid quite well much of my adult life to do it. BTW - googling "climate change", is not research, unless you are a 12 year old with a science project. Some nicely done research can be found via google. Unfortunately, some research sources don't include keywords in their web page code, so the really interesting stuff might be on the 38th of 100 pages found by google. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
Sure hope it wasn't C!!
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... And the coldest recorded natural temperature on earth was recorded at the Russian station, and the alcohol thermometer froze at -125 degrees. I think F. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"surfnturf" wrote in message news:QeD%f.11155$P01.3985@pd7tw3no... Sure hope it wasn't C!! "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... And the coldest recorded natural temperature on earth was recorded at the Russian station, and the alcohol thermometer froze at -125 degrees. I think F. Where does alcohol freeze? |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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... |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
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. Jeff Rigby wrote: It is an option and has been upheld as a right of the executive branch. Oh yeah, that's one of the fundamental principles outlined by the Founding Fathers: "A Republican President shall be entitled to keep anything secret he wants, especially if it might be politically embarassing. A Democrat President, OTOH shall not." Was that the double secret probation clause in the Constitution? Our system of gov't is founded on the citizens rights, including the citizens right to know what his gov't is doing. 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. Bull****, plain and simple. You don't know who they were, so how do you know there weren't any others? Or do you mean there "aren't any others who are in bed with Vice President Cheney and who are committed to maintaining tremendous profits for the oil industry, even against the best strategic interest of the U.S."? .... 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. Uh huh. Is there even one tiny scrap of evidence that energy independence was part of Cheney's energy policy? I'd love to hear it. 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... Well, my reaction is that a citizen of the U.S. has enumerated rights which trump the gov't desire to keep secrets. Your reaction seems to be that the closer we get to a fascist dictatorship, the better.... and you want to complain about my attitude. That's "partisan politics?" DSK |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : I'm quite familiar with research. I've been paid quite well much of my adult life to do it. BTW - googling "climate change", is not research, unless you are a 12 year old with a science project. Some nicely done research can be found via google. Too bad you can't post one sentence to refute anything on the pages found by googling "sunspots climate". You're interested? You find it. It's there. You want a secretary? Hire one. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:19:01 -0400, "Jeff Rigby" wrote: Republican. Bush is implementing mercury emission standards but he is SLOWLY implementing them. I'm not happy about that. When the monkey's staff refused to reveal the attendees at his so-called "energy task force" meetings, did you find that odd, and write to his sitters to complain? Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so only if their names were not released. They requested this because they did not want to become embroiled in political battles. Interesting discussion, wrong group. "It's all about boats." OK, boating relatedFDA has recommended that pregnant women or women who may become pregnant limit their intake of shark or swordfish to one meal per month because of mercury contamination. It's not as critical for adult men but we should all be concerned with mercury contamination. I don't know about you but fishing is boating related. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message . .. "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:19:01 -0400, "Jeff Rigby" wrote: Republican. Bush is implementing mercury emission standards but he is SLOWLY implementing them. I'm not happy about that. When the monkey's staff refused to reveal the attendees at his so-called "energy task force" meetings, did you find that odd, and write to his sitters to complain? Nope, I understood that the people who attended the meeting did so only if their names were not released. They requested this because they did not want to become embroiled in political battles. Interesting discussion, wrong group. "It's all about boats." OK, boating relatedFDA has recommended that pregnant women or women who may become pregnant limit their intake of shark or swordfish to one meal per month because of mercury contamination. It's not as critical for adult men but we should all be concerned with mercury contamination. I don't know about you but fishing is boating related. "has recommended"?? That's been known for almost 20 years. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
Black Dog wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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??? |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Black Dog wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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??? Just curious...........how does that compare to what Mt. St. Helens spewed into the atmosphere when it erupted? How does that compare to the constant volcanic eruptions occurring throughout the history of the earth, well before man was even here? I am not trying to argue with you......I would just like to know. ;-) |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Black Dog wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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??? Just curious...........how does that compare to what Mt. St. Helens spewed into the atmosphere when it erupted? How does that compare to the constant volcanic eruptions occurring throughout the history of the earth, well before man was even here? I am not trying to argue with you......I would just like to know. ;-) BTW, your figures are off: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t/co2emiss.pdf |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Black Dog wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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". Mercury, too. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Black Dog wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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". Mercury, too. Lead and Mercury are two elements where any amount in the body is considered bad. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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? |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"CalifBill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Black Dog wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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". Mercury, too. Lead and Mercury are two elements where any amount in the body is considered bad. Like I said... :-) |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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? |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Black Dog wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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. ;-) |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
" 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 ... 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. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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 ... 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? |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
" 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 ... 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!!!!!!!!!! |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"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 ... 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. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. .. 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. I never said I was an expert. Please show me where you believe I said that. |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
Doug Kanter wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Black Dog wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Black Dog" wrote in message ... 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". Mercury, too. You did it well, too!! |
Global Warming: It Has Stopped
"Bryan" wrote in message ... "The constant cycles of cooling and warming has occurred for millions of years. Why is the fact that we are in a heightened solar flare cycle and both the Earth and Mars are getting warmer not of interest to you? What caused the glaciers from the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago to thaw? What caused those glaciers to form in the first place? Something you global warming adherents fail to comprehend is that the planet does not exist alone and that the Sun is an integral part of our existence and has a dramatic effect on our planet and our own existence." - Bert Bert, Does the ozone hole exhibit geologic cyclic behavior, also? One of the things the Global Warming folks bring up is that the ozone hole is getting bigger and that is, in part, attached to the claims of man-made global warming. Exactly the opposite.... The ozone hole is directly related to sunspot activity, less activity and the ozone hole at the south pole increases. For the last four years with increased sunspot activity ( the sun is hotter) it has been closing and there is currently no hole in the ozone layer at the south pole. There was speculation that Freon was reducing ozone in the upper atmosphere but that also has not been proven. You see, freon is a very heavy molecule and very little gets into the upper atmosphere to have an effect on ozone produced by ultraviolet rays from the sun. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com