"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:32:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..

Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family.


It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is
the
game:

1) He says he didn't vote for Bush.
2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration.
3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that
he
supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the
moment....you
understand the rest, right?


You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to
see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above.

There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support.
Where
you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me.

You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made
since
Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'.

John, I haven't even bothered to look.


You made a wise decision.

No - busy. Garden, boat prep, garden, boat prep, garden, practice fly
casting in front yard (to amuse neighbors), garden, boat prep.....

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:30:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:32:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family.


It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is
the
game:

1) He says he didn't vote for Bush.
2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration.
3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that
he
supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the
moment....you
understand the rest, right?


You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to
see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above.

There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support.
Where
you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me.

You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made
since
Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'.

John, I haven't even bothered to look.


You made a wise decision.

No - busy. Garden, boat prep, garden, boat prep, garden, practice fly
casting in front yard (to amuse neighbors), garden, boat prep.....


Just don't forget to get your boat ready for the season!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html


Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun
by your clone, Bert. :-)


Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe.



What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get
between you and Doug)?


His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to
broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man
caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and
it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the
same time? Mars Rovers?

You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a
pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just
because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based,
doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming,
don't you?


Some questions for you.

Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful
farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra?

What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally
occurring?

What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late
90s?

Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance
funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing
universal heath care?
Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because
there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major
truths being discovered.

BTW what ever happened to the hockey stick model?





--This space available for a really clever sig

JimH wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!!
{to any rebuttal}


JohnH wrote:
Have I posted some of that, Doug?
--

Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were
cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only
about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls.

Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of
posts/thread I regularly skip.

DSK

Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't
see
the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't
noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since
before
Christmas.

John H

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so
indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names
often.


How the hell did I get thrown into this????


You woke up this morning.


No I didn't. I am still asleep.

Then the answer is you got thrown in while you were sleeping!

Hans wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html


Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun
by your clone, Bert. :-)


Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe.



What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get
between you and Doug)?


His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to
broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man
caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and
it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the
same time? Mars Rovers?

You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a
pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just
because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based,
doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming,
don't you?


Some questions for you.

Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful
farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra?

Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling
trends.

What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally
occurring?

Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep
things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most
things.

What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late
90s?

It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat

Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance
funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing
universal heath care?

A Washington lobbyist.
Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because
there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major
truths being discovered.

Horse****.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:25:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Hans wrote:

Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance
funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing
universal heath care?
Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because
there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major
truths being discovered.


Ahhhh. Another member of the Flat Earth Society.



Another clueless liberal who has nothing to add.

BTW the flat earth theory was, pretty much a universal truth by the
leading scientists of the middle ages.


--This space available for a really clever sig

On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html


Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun
by your clone, Bert. :-)


Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe.



What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get
between you and Doug)?


His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to
broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man
caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and
it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the
same time? Mars Rovers?

You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a
pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just
because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based,
doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming,
don't you?


Some questions for you.

Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful
farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra?

Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling
trends.


What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally
occurring?

Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep
things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most
things.

Keep what in balance? What is the saturation point?
And it does matter. If 99% of the CO2 is naturally occurring the
world's economics could come to screaming halt and it would make
little or no difference.

What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late
90s?

It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat

The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values
mean.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records
of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
(there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that
differs significantly from zero).



Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance
funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing
universal heath care?

A Washington lobbyist.
Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because
there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major
truths being discovered.

Horse****.


Obviously you haven't sat on a funding review board for sponsored
research. Some of the tactics I have seen employed would put a King's
Cross hooker to shame.



--This space available for a really clever sig

Hans wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html


Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun
by your clone, Bert. :-)


Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe.



What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get
between you and Doug)?


His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to
broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man
caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and
it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the
same time? Mars Rovers?

You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a
pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just
because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based,
doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming,
don't you?


Some questions for you.

Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful
farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra?

Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling
trends.


What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally
occurring?

Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep
things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most
things.

Keep what in balance? What is the saturation point?
And it does matter. If 99% of the CO2 is naturally occurring the
world's economics could come to screaming halt and it would make
little or no difference.

What to hell does the "world's economics" have to do with anything that
I've stated in this thread???

What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late
90s?

It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat

The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values
mean.

Not my problem. I read it just fine!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records
of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
(there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that
differs significantly from zero).

Significance is the key word here. You see, if we are talking about the
a hundred pounds of feathers, one or two more feathers is
insignificant. If we are talking about global warming, a slight
deviation from zero IS significant.



Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance
funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing
universal heath care?

A Washington lobbyist.
Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because
there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major
truths being discovered.

Horse****.


Obviously you haven't sat on a funding review board for sponsored
research. Some of the tactics I have seen employed would put a King's
Cross hooker to shame.

I guess you've never seen a Washington lobbyist in action.

Hans wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:

What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late
90s?

It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat


The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values
mean.



Any set of world temperature figures that does not show a significant
dip in 1992/1993 is instantly suspect in my mind. I remember that the
water mains froze in this city (Sudbury, ON). Everybody on city water
had to leave their taps running all winter to stop the freeze up.

It was a temporary effect from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. But it did
cause temperatures to plunge world wide (plunge a fraction of a degree,
that is, but that's all we're ever talking about except in silly
movies). How come that data just vanished? How come so many global
warming articles talk about a "steady increase in temperatures" since
1988? (well, they change the year around a bit)

Granted, 1988 was hot. I remember a big fire in Yellowstone that year.
It was also a solar max year in the sunspot cycle. As was 98/99.
According to some we've been cooling since. I don't necessarily trust
their figures either. Last year the sun was extraordinarily busy for
what should have been a solar minimum. But here I am thinking global
warming is caused by the sun. How silly am I?

Hans wrote:
On 18 Apr 2006 07:00:57 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html


Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun
by your clone, Bert. :-)


Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe.



What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get
between you and Doug)?


His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to
broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man
caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and
it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the
same time? Mars Rovers?

You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a
pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just
because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based,
doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming,
don't you?


Some questions for you.

Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful
farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra?

Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling
trends.


What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally
occurring?

Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep
things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most
things.

Keep what in balance? What is the saturation point?
And it does matter. If 99% of the CO2 is naturally occurring the
world's economics could come to screaming halt and it would make
little or no difference.

What to hell does the "world's economics" have to do with anything that
I've stated in this thread???

Are you really that obtuse? The world's economy is what is driving man
made C02 emissions.

Until somebody is ready to state what percentage of the world's C02 is
created by man you are flying in a blind liberal frenzy.

What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late
90s?

It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat

The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values
mean.

Not my problem. I read it just fine!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records
of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
(there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that
differs significantly from zero).

Significance is the key word here. You see, if we are talking about the
a hundred pounds of feathers, one or two more feathers is
insignificant. If we are talking about global warming, a slight
deviation from zero IS significant.

I couldn't agree more.
And the study referenced above shows a SLIGHT DECREASE from 1998 to
2005

But it's only ONE STUDY...........ONE....there are hundreds and
hundreds that dispute that.


Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance
funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing
universal heath care?

A Washington lobbyist.
Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because
there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major
truths being discovered.

Horse****.


Obviously you haven't sat on a funding review board for sponsored
research. Some of the tactics I have seen employed would put a King's
Cross hooker to shame.

I guess you've never seen a Washington lobbyist in action.


I have.
Much more straight forward than several scientific bodies fighting for
the same funding. You can, almost, predict the outcome before the
research ever starts.
It usually starts with "I believe our xxx institution is more attune
to your requirements than yyy or zzz"

Science comes hard for some people, apparently. While inane political
blather seems perfectly plausible to same. Go figure.

Read between the lines.

No thank you, I prefer real data over what someone may possibly, maybe,
sort of, perhaps is trying to say.