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.

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.

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 . . .

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.

"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.

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.

"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?

"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...

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

"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.

"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.