One for the not so swift among us-
 

On 29 May 2006 08:13:13 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:41:45 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
Therefore, unlike your circuit
simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate
simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy.

So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past?

Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an
accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we
have 100 years ago?

Maybe they didn't have weather satellites then, but they had weather.
They also had people quite competent in keeping data.

They sure did. Unfortunately, the instruments they used were crude
compared to today's, and many measurements needed weren't made because
the science to allow their measurement didn't exist.


You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's
not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know
what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the
inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to
assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never
know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and
have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme
of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this
box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually
no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and
observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our
control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your
simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be
verified against the real world.

So answer this, Rick. As previously discussed, weather models can't
tell us with any decent accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are
you really telling me that you believe a climate model's prediction
for 94 years into the future?

Flawed analogy. Very flawed. the model for recent events (5 days in
your case is much more detailed and refined than the 94 year model. The
more detailed and the more refined a model is, the more instances of
error. Ergo, while a 5 day model might not be accurate in your eyes, if
it were the same detail as the 94 year model, it would be spot on.

No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate. Point is that we can't predict something
relatively simple for a short 5 day window, but you expect to be able
to predict something extremely complex for a 100 YEAR window?

I can predict our climate 5 days from now... barring a huge meteor
impact, it'll be virtually the exact same as today's. The meteor
points out one of the problem with climate prediction... we don't know
what we don't know. No matter how you dress it up, any prediction
from the experts is no better than a guess. Maybe in another hundred
years, we'll get better at it. Or maybe we'll be extinct.

No one knows. :-)

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...


No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate.

Actually, I've read numerous articles about the concept of "complex
systems". In all the things I've read, two examples were used to illustrate:
the weather, and massive computer programming tasks.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:06:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .


No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate.

Actually, I've read numerous articles about the concept of "complex
systems". In all the things I've read, two examples were used to illustrate:
the weather, and massive computer programming tasks.


Correct. That's why even 5-day forecasts are often inaccurate. Then
when you realize that "Weather is *simple* compared to climate", it
makes the concept of accurate 100 year climate predictions seem
totally ludicrous!

Jack

This has been fun, but I have to finish cutting the tile for our
master bath. The wife just *had* to have it laid diagonally, and the
tile is 18", and the room is fairly "cut up" with some walls at a 45,
so my hands are full. It was a good excuse to buy a bridge tile saw!

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:06:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..


No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate.

Actually, I've read numerous articles about the concept of "complex
systems". In all the things I've read, two examples were used to
illustrate:
the weather, and massive computer programming tasks.


Correct. That's why even 5-day forecasts are often inaccurate. Then
when you realize that "Weather is *simple* compared to climate", it
makes the concept of accurate 100 year climate predictions seem
totally ludicrous!

Jack

In any case, I'm absolutely 100% positive that you are correct. Based on
your research, humans do not, and never will have any effect on the
environment. This has all been a hoax perpetrated on the world by companies
who make green ink, the most popular color in the mass mailing sent out by
environmental groups.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human
activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a
fanatic?

I don't believe you can explain to me how the thought process which
brought
you to this question is any different from the one used to pass the
PATRIOT
Act and other such "Al-Qaeda-is-under-your-bed" legislation, but it will
be
entertaining for me to watch you try.

Have at it, sir.


Which part of my question do you not understand?

Fruitz like to say that scientists who believe certain global warming
theories are fanatics. (He may even consider them socialists, but I don't
remember. He tosses that word around to describe everything including the
glides attached to the bottom of chair legs). Anyway...onward: If a number
of scientists come up with absolute proof of certain global warming
theories, Fruitz will now need to admit that some of all of the researchers
were NOT fanatics. But, how? Are they fanatics until proof of their theories
exists? Are they fanatics even if they're proven to be correct? Are some of
them still fanatics, but not all? Which ones?

There are other fields of research which Fruitz has no interest in at the
moment. Within those endeavors are scientists who believe strongly in their
theories, whether they involve cancer research or creating a better roof
shingle. If their enthusiasm is precisely equal to that of people studying
global warming, are these scientists also fanatics?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:34:36 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Explain the increase in Mars' temperature.

Explain the direct relationship between Martian weather and the
Earth's weather.

Ummm, they share a primary source of heat?

That's right, there is none.

Noone who would start their argument from such a position of ignorance is
worth my time.

Sadly though, as a testament to the poor science/logic/math education
that we have given to many of our students, this is an all too often
repeated talking point.

OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.


You're correct. Changes in the sun will be seen on both planets, perhaps
even at levels which are proportionate. This proves that humans have no
effect on the environment. Right?

RIGHT? Yes, or no?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Jack Goff wrote:

Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an
accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we
have 100 years ago?

You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's
not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know
what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the
inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to
assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never
know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and
have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme
of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this
box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually
no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and
observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our
control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your
simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be
verified against the real world.

So answer this, Rick. As previously discussed, weather models can't
tell us with any decent accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are
you really telling me that you believe a climate model's prediction
for 94 years into the future?

Jack

While historical data is admittedly incomplete that doesn't
make it useless nor is accurate 94 year extrapolation
necessary for model utility. Obviously the methodology
differs from fields where controlled experiments are
practical, a limitation not unique to climatology.

Where I live the five day forecasts are pretty good these
days, much better than they were a decade ago.

"All models are wrong, some are useful".

-rick-

One for the not so swift among us-
 

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further enhances my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did before. Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back it up
with links like crazy.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances my statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

Then present some.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

Present evidence of the change, and that human activity is causal of that
change.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html
Which starts out:
The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by
human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in
the world's oceans.



The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
said yesterday

And he http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm
Which starts out:
Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made
greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The
researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they
describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean
temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within
the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural
phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to
the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said:
"We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a
global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about
it?"

One for the not so swift among us-
 

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances my statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

Then present some.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

Present evidence of the change, and that human activity is causal of that
change.

No sum of evidence would convince a flat earther that the world is
round.

Waste o' time.

jps

One for the not so swift among us-
 

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did before. Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back it up
with links like crazy.

I'll reply NY-style.

You want evidence? I gotch yer evidence right heeeaa.

jps

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth
proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances my statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in
fact, that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

Then present some.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that
we've messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system
as integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going
to produce change.

Present evidence of the change, and that human activity is causal of
that change.

No sum of evidence would convince a flat earther that the world is
round.

No amount of attack will make up for the lack of evidence.


Do you feel that human activity has no effect, some effect, or what? I'm
asking about your own personal hunch, not "evidence".

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse
over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did before.
Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back it
up
with links like crazy.

I'll reply NY-style.

You want evidence? I gotch yer evidence right heeeaa.

jps

Next, you're going to claim that if you're waiting for a pot of water to
boil, putting a lid on it will speed things up.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse
over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did before.
Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back it
up
with links like crazy.

I'll reply NY-style.

You want evidence? I gotch yer evidence right heeeaa.

jps

Next, you're going to claim that if you're waiting for a pot of water to
boil, putting a lid on it will speed things up.

Hehe!

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth
proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in
fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that
we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces
certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse
over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did
before.
Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back
it
up
with links like crazy.

I'll reply NY-style.

You want evidence? I gotch yer evidence right heeeaa.

jps

Next, you're going to claim that if you're waiting for a pot of water to
boil, putting a lid on it will speed things up.

Hehe!


Stephen Hawking says that physical events here have an effect on the other
side of the galaxy, and that someday, these will be measurable. Another
fanatic. What a hack this guy is.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:31:25 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2006 09:24:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of min

Are you discussing the agit-prop "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al "I
invented the Internet" - "Love Story was modeled after Tipper and me"
Gore?

Please - Anyone with an historical perspective and a modicum of
knowledge about metrology and physics will tell you that (1) They
don't have a freakin' clue if there is or isn't "global warming" and
(2) the recent "activity" is more about normal solar/current patterns
than "global warming".

Then again, this is Al "I'm so freakin' smart I scare myself to death"
Gore. :)

Believe what you will, but actually try to understand the varying
opinions from all the respected scientists involved in this debate
rather than Al "The Sky is Falling - or at least Warming Up" Gore.

On another subject, did you buy a new bigger, betterer boat?

Are you back? For a while this time? Are we going to have to put up with
you again?

If you'll notice, all the best people have stayed out of the global warming
debate.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth
proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances my statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in
fact, that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

Then present some.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that
we've messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system
as integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going
to produce change.

Present evidence of the change, and that human activity is causal of
that change.

No sum of evidence would convince a flat earther that the world is
round.

No amount of attack will make up for the lack of evidence.

The alarmists keep proving my point.

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w.../gw_index.html

"There is perhaps no clearer example of the arbitrary vagaries of mainstream
peer-review and its promotion of non-scientific fads, driven by political
and economic interests, than the recent promotion of the pseudoscientific
myth of 'global warming', systematically accompanied by the recurrent fits
of public hysteria it engenders amongst scientists, politicians,
environmentalists (another type of politico), mainstream science journals
and mass-media.

Fads of this type - the fear-mongering alarmist type - have become the
mainstay of official mass-media and the object of sensationalistic
'science-journalism'. There's been a whole series of such fads associated
with pseudo-scientific meteorology and climatology, that are cyclically
promoted by syndicated news media and official or mainstream science
publications.

In the 70's, in the wake of the atmospheric cooling experienced between
1945-1947 and 1972, there was a passing fad of 'global' cooling, supposedly
buttressed by study of the fossil record and ice samples, which had
'established' the existence of cycles of minor ice-ages (see reference to
the Milankovich model below). At that time, the fear was that the earth was
just turning the corner into a new ice-age. Any notion of global warming
was strictly anathema. Instead, it was argued that man-made contributions
would aggravate this cooling by the production of carbon and sulphur
aerosols. As Richard Lindzen points out [1], some of the best-selling
authors of this rubbish, like Stephen Schneider and Crispin Tickell, have
now, not so surprisingly, moved on to become apologists of the 'global
warming' hysteria. Lindzen may argue that, amongst scientists, the fad was
shortlived; yet, it is worth mentioning that, besides an ambiguous report by
the NRC of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the two reports that
initiated the 'global cooling' fad - on the natural prediction of an ice age
as the trend of future climate [2], and on the effects of CO2 and aerosols
on cooling global climate [3] - were both published in the journal Science,
the very same peer-reviewed journal that now promotes the 'reality' of
'global warming'.

Next came the fad of acid-rain, then one heard about cows and termites being
a significant source of atmosphere-polluting methane (that one was dear to
Reaganism in the early 80's), then about the hole in the stratospheric ozone
layer over Antarctica (back in 1985, by the British Antarctic Survey, BAS),
and finally 'global warming' came of age. Each fad came with smidgens of
truth scattered about in a tissue of lies, unverifiable axioms and perverse
falsification of facts. And, of course, each also came with an ever growing
number of climate modellers, now armed with supercomputers...

Pseudoscientific fads do not have, nor do they need, any reason to come
about, being set in motion solely by the political and social forces that
promote them, and the vested interests they serve. Climatology and other
environmental sciences are particularly vulnerable to this sort of
manipulation because, as Lindzen puts it, "rigor is generally impossible"
in these disciplines. But since these fads are supposed to be 'scientific',
they are compelled to search for pseudo-evidence which may serve as the
excuse (the 'scientific reason') for their promotion in mainstream journals
and the media. Typically there is a little truth in this pseudo-evidence,
but its generalization or interpretation falsifies the facts and the data,
undermining both the value and the quality of the latter. "

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
...

"There is perhaps no clearer example of the arbitrary vagaries of
mainstream peer-review and its promotion of non-scientific fads, driven by
political and economic interests

You posted this, so it's safe to assume you believe it. What economic
interests do you think drive this PARTICULAR scientific subject?



Next came the fad of acid-rain

The fad??? The NY State DEC seems to disagree, based on 30+ years' worth of
data on rain and the changes in a myriad of lakes.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Ok, which of these statements is false:


Sean Corbett wrote:
Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are accepted as
your offer of surrender.

I bet this person doesn't even see the irony of this reply.

Sean, why don't you just answer Gene's questions?

DSK

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On 30 May 2006 10:17:22 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html

And he http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Both "news" articles are about the same study over a year ago, which
has since been shown to have serious flaws.

Here's a couple of things to look at:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf

Note that these are not some newspaper hack's slanted opinions, but
rather are open-minded, researched papers complete with abundant
references.

If Eric is still following this thread, he may find the second one
especially interesting, as it talks about the flaws in the computer
models used for climate predictions.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:32:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote:

Correct. That's why even 5-day forecasts are often inaccurate. Then
when you realize that "Weather is *simple* compared to climate", it
makes the concept of accurate 100 year climate predictions seem
totally ludicrous!

Jack

In any case, I'm absolutely 100% positive that you are correct.

Now we're getting somewhere!


Based on your research, humans do not, and never will have any effect on the
environment. This has all been a hoax perpetrated on the world by companies
who make green ink, the most popular color in the mass mailing sent out by
environmental groups.

Huh? How did you get that from what I've written? Especially when I
wrote " It's not that most people don't acknowledge some type of
connection between warming and human activity. Rather, it's whether or
not human activity plays a *significant* role in the equation, and if
anything we might do could make any measurable difference whatsoever."

Do you read and understand what you've read, or exist here just post
inane comments?

Jack

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 01:09:38 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:


But to answer your first question last, I'm not here permanently until
at least August if not September. We're going to be buying a house in
South Carolina on top of everything else I'm up to this summer, so
there is a limited opportunity to just chat.

Welcome to SC! Where, generally, in the state? We're around the Lake
Murray area.

Jack

One for the not so swift among us-
 

If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first post
proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at least equal
to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can employ that can
spare you further ridicule.


Gene Kearns wrote:
Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration. If this is the best you can provide, given
the number of credible scientists working on the problem, you really
don't have much science to back your position up, do you?


You mean like the doctors who used to go on TV in the 50s
and 60s to say that smoking cigarettes was good for you?

DSK

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Harry,

You let some nit like that insult you?

The situation reminds me of an episode of the old 60's Batman series,
when Batman was telling Boy Robin about the lunacies of one of the
fabled super criminals.

"Robin, he's to be pitied more than feared"



Harry Krause wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:55 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first post
proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at least equal
to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can employ that can
spare you further ridicule.

Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration. If this is the best you can provide, given
the number of credible scientists working on the problem, you really
don't have much science to back your position up, do you?



Was I insulted by Sean Corbett, space cadet?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Jack Goff wrote:

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf

funded by XOM

There's still time to get tickets to their awards dinner
honoring GWB with keynote speaker Haley Barbour at $500 to
$35,000 per person.
1625 K Street, NW #1050, Washington, DC 20006.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.

Ok, which of these statements is false:

Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are accepted
as
your offer of surrender.

You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion, although you believe
you're leading others around by the nose.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.

Ok, which of these statements is false:

Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are
accepted as
your offer of surrender.

You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion

Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of heat is
the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless of course
you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question yourself.

Some of my questions to you have gone unanswered. I see no reason to show
you any further courtesy until you learn to keep up with the discussion.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:52:16 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf

funded by XOM

and others... so? Can't debate the message, so you attempt to kill
the messenger?


There's still time to get tickets to their awards dinner
honoring GWB with keynote speaker Haley Barbour at $500 to
$35,000 per person.
1625 K Street, NW #1050, Washington, DC 20006.

Sweet!!! You going?

Face it... the climate alarmists still don't have it right. Get back
to me when they have a clue.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:55 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first
post proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at
least equal to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can
employ that can spare you further ridicule.

Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration.

Calling a Harvard-educated, MIT-employed, chair-endowed Professor a "hack"
is a guaranteed way to get yourself laughed clear off the Internet.

Especially when you've posted not a single word demonstrating causality
between human activity and planetary temperature.

Hell, fool, you don't even acknowledge that the Earth and Mars are warmed
by the sun.

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their own
"religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith is deemed
a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is at
fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.

Ok, which of these statements is false:

Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are
accepted as
your offer of surrender.

You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion

Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of heat is
the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless of course
you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question yourself.

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w.../gw_index.html
"But how did the official line of Royal Science and mass-media coverage
manage to flip flop from the hysteria of anticipated 'global cooling' to the
hysteria of 'global warming'?

By 1989, mass-media mouthpieces were promoting the notion, now dominant,
that 'all' scientists in the U.S. and Europe were agreed on the reality of
'global warming'. The magazine Science, of course, was at the forefront of
the new fashion. When Lindzen submitted, in the spring of 1989, a critique
of the myth to Science, the paper was rejected without even being
peer-reviewed. Eventually, it was accepted by the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, but Science took it upon itself to criticize the
blackballed article before it was even published - one in a long line of
clear-cut instances of Science's unethical behavior, and proof positive of
the existence of an unspoken policy of general circulation of leaked
submissions.

The direct political reasons for the promotion of the 'global warming' fad
are to be found in the convergence of diverse social forces:

.. the evolution of left (social-democratic) political forces towards a new
electoral marketing - militant form of environmentalism, and technocratic
managerialism;

.. the transformation of 'ecological' organizations into profitable
non-profit, macro-capitalist funds;

.. the design of national State bureaucracies to control the entirety of
social life with new regulatory mechanisms;

.. the emergence of a new International State technobureaucracy in search of
supranational powers and jurisdictions.

To these social forces one must add the worldwide unregulated growth of
cadres and the transformation of forces of antiproduction and destruction
into profitable ventures. Thus -

.. an excess of PhD's in physics and mathematics with little left to aim for
other than the pursuit of a career within the official institutions of
organized dissent, where they endlessly generate models and fads pliable to
political interests, in particular those fads that are dear to the global
techno-socialist management of capitalism; and

.. the subsidies, grants and investment provided to 'green' groups by some of
the worst polluter industries (eg oil, nuclear companies, utilities, etc) as
a way to redeem their status or blanch their image, and as a sort of
'protection fee'.

Finally, there is, as we said, a softness that, so far, is intrinsic to
environmental sciences, and which makes them particularly vulnerable to
mystification and political manipulation.

Of all these social forces and trends, it is apparent that the main role is
played by the emerging global technobureaucracy. Taken separately, the
other forces were unlikely to amass sufficient momentum for a deep social
penetration. They needed a substantial partner in power, and a
pseudo-scientific doctrine that could be shoved down everyone's throat.
That's what they found in the UN, in its latest role as a 'regulator' of
'sustainable development and global growth', and in its highly corrupt NGO
structure. From the sham Rio de Janeiro Conference, in 1992, to Kyoto, these
neo-left-wing militants - their ranks swollen with crypto-anarchist
volunteer slave-labor - formed the frontlines of the New Global Order, the
millenial paradigm, even as they claimed to be denouncing 'globalism'.
Pliable to the new international capitalism of global looting, the 'global
warming' movement disguised its objectives as scientific, and 'dictated'
them as being in the objective interest of mankind. The myth of 'global
warming' was their precious tool:

"Global warming advocacy is big business, hundreds of millions in research
and other funds are available annually for those scientists and
organizations who spout the party line (just check the Pew Foundation gravy
trains), don't fool yourself, scientists and professors need money and
research funds, and some are willing to violate the scientific method to
obtain them. (...) Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, WWF, etc, who make
these claims, (...) who present themselves as non-profit/non-partisan, are
neither. They are just as biased and unscientific in their approach as the
big oil, car and chemical companies are. They make money from fear
mongering to collect funds from well meaning, concerned, but scientifically
naive people." [4]

'Global warming' is likely to be the most expensive pseudo-scientific hoax
ever implemented. As of August 22, 2005 - and since the Kyoto protocol came
into effect on February 16, 2005 - the Kyoto Agreement has cost 80 billion
dollars for, supposedly, a prevention of warming by 0.0008 deg C... To
prevent a 1 deg C increase it will cost some 100 trillion dollars [5]. One
can measure this wasteful capital expenditure by the 16 billion that was
needed to shore up New Orleans and the Mississippi delta from a stage 5
hurricane like Katrina, or by the paltry 3 billion that the US spends
annually in orthodox research on alternative energy (reduced, in essence, to
solar cells and wind turbines) . 'Global warming' is a clearcut example of
the central role acquired by antiproduction in global capitalism. Its
promoters, with peer-reviewed mainstream publications at the forefront, have
struck gold - a very lucrative business, where nothing needs to be actually
produced, not even real science, in order for a 'healthy' profit to be made
under the cover of an altruistic advocacy voicing demands in the name of
mankind...

Nothing could outdo the power of this hoax in fuelling anti-Americanism
worldwide, nor become as engrossing a plot for the 'prime time' show:

"The global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on
nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer
of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah. Redford
proclaimed that it was time to stop the research and begin acting. I
suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it
was also indicative of the overall attitude towards science. Barbara
Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael
Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an
advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public
television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans
a stable climate." [1]

From Jeremy Legget of Greenpeace, to George Mitchell and Albert Gore (who
compared the 'true believers' in 'global warming' to Galileo! Caramba!),
'global warming' had become the latest soap, an international brand to sell
books and plead for donations. Lindzen appropriately concludes:

"Rarely has such meager science provoked such an outpouring of
popularization by individuals who do not understand the subject in the first
place."

To the long list of circus performers, one must add that other latecomer
among the plethora of modern trashcans, the populist purveyor of gross
ineptitude - Wikipedia, ruled by a neo-maoist cabal of 'global warming'
zealots."

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:55 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first
post proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at
least equal to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can
employ that can spare you further ridicule.

Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration.

Calling a Harvard-educated, MIT-employed, chair-endowed Professor a "hack"
is a guaranteed way to get yourself laughed clear off the Internet.

Especially when you've posted not a single word demonstrating causality
between human activity and planetary temperature.

Hell, fool, you don't even acknowledge that the Earth and Mars are warmed
by the sun.

Small band......LMAO

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:55 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first
post proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at
least equal to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can
employ that can spare you further ridicule.

Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration.

Calling a Harvard-educated, MIT-employed, chair-endowed Professor a
"hack"
is a guaranteed way to get yourself laughed clear off the Internet.

Especially when you've posted not a single word demonstrating causality
between human activity and planetary temperature.

Hell, fool, you don't even acknowledge that the Earth and Mars are warmed
by the sun.

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their own
"religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith is
deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is at
fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you have, in
the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some sort of
environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting to control
your habits.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.

Ok, which of these statements is false:

Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are
accepted as
your offer of surrender.

You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion

Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of
heat is the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless
of course you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question
yourself.

Some of my questions to you have gone unanswered. I see no reason to
show you any further courtesy until you learn to keep up with the
discussion.

Examine the thread and you will see who's "keeping up" and who's dodging.

If you can't do the first or refuse to acknowledge the last, I have no use
for you, and I doubt too many others have use for you either.

There aren't THAT many messages in the thread yet. Find the questions I've
asked you, and answer them. Then, perhaps we can continue. Your antics would
not be tolerated in a classroom.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On 30 May 2006 10:17:22 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html

And he http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Both "news" articles are about the same study over a year ago, which
has since been shown to have serious flaws.

Here's a couple of things to look at:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf

Note that these are not some newspaper hack's slanted opinions, but
rather are open-minded, researched papers complete with abundant
references.

If Eric is still following this thread, he may find the second one
especially interesting, as it talks about the flaws in the computer
models used for climate predictions.


http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w.../gw_index.html
The dominant solar control of weather
Here much too much could be said. It begins perhaps with all those studies
that never succeeded in understanding the complex variation of the motion of
planets and the solar system, nor the different solar cycles caused by
distinct motion components, nor the effect of these cycles on the variations
in the intensity and spectral composition of solar emissions. Almost
everything in this chapter of climatology needs to be redone, since the sun
does not determine terrestrial weather, but drives its patterns and controls
or modulates its responses. Yet, so little is understood about this by
Official Science, and the pace of the investigation is so slow, that it
truly makes one cringe. In fact, solar-minded climatologists are largely
shunned by Official Science; they are an eccentricity of climatology.

This ties in with the subject of the previous section because, in still
another sense, the problem begins with not understanding the physical nature
of solar radiation and thus not understanding the variations in intensity or
spectral energy of this radiation. Yet, a displacement of solar ambipolar
radiation towards emissions having electric energy greater than 50 KeV would
result in a greater transfer of energy from the sun to the atmosphere, and
would readily promote UV photon production in the atmosphere. As
Landscheidt remarks, it is well established (see the references that he
provides [43]) that -

"change in the UV radiation of the Sun is much greater than in the range of
visible radiation. The UV range of the [electromagnetic] spectrum lies
between 100Å and 3800Å. Wavelengths below 1500Å are called extreme
ultraviolet, EUV. The variation in radiation between extrema of the 11-year
sunspot cycle reaches 35% in the EUV range, 20% at 1500Å and 7% around
2500Å. At wavelengths above 2500Å, the variation reaches still 2%. At the
time of energetic solar eruptions, UV radiation increases up to 16%."

Where are these variations taken into account in the models that predict
what they assume, namely, 'global warming'? Landscheidt provides an answer
to that question as well:

"There is not even an attempt to model such complex climate details, as GCMs
are too coarse for such purposes. When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse
protagonist) was asked why GCMs do not allow for the stratosphere's warming
by the sun's ultraviolet radiation and its impact on the circulation in the
troposphere, he answered: "This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into
the models."

So, in this chapter of forcing climatology to study what it should be
studying, a first entry would be an effective taking into account of the
variation of the so-called solar irradiance constant caused by such solar
features as 'faculae' [52]. A second entry would further propose that the
solar 10.7 cm radio flux has been abused as a proxy for the UV flux
associated with solar radiation, to paraphrase Fred Singer [53]. Further,
we claim this is a double abuse, since the ultimate cause of that EUV flux
is solar ambipolar radiation greater than 79.4 keV. In both of these
entries, it is actual research into basic science that is missing. Yet, the
myths of global warming rely upon the glorification of this absence.

Decadal ranges of variation in the irradiance 'constant', spanning 3W/m2, or
0.22% of the mean value of that 'constant', are observed by satellite
radiometers. The usual calculation is that 30% of this energy is reflected,
and only one quarter of the remainder absorbed (on the order of 239 W/m2),
with the result that the variation in absorbed energy only amounts to 0.53
W/m2 [43]. If one accepts that global warming reaches 2.4±0.4 W/m2, the
variation of the solar 'constant' only accounts for one fifth of this
magnitude. Even inference of the "solar radiative forcing change" as
"slightly less than 1W/m2" [54] cannot account for that accepted value of
global warming, nor for more than 0.27 deg C out of the claimed warming by
0.5 to 0.6 deg C [55]. The conclusion of 'global warming' advocates is, of
course, that the remainder of the warming must be man-made.

This is something of a false conundrum, since energy reflection varies for
land masses, oceans and ice cover, and to convert watts per meter squared
into degrees of atmospheric temperature is a relatively arbitrary process
with a range of 0.3 to 1.4 deg C per W/m2. As Landscheidt puts it, if one
chooses the mean value at 0.85 deg C/W/m2, the solar variation of 0.53 W/m2
accounts for 0.425 deg C of change. A mean value of 0.55 deg C/W/m2 would
suffice completely if the absorbed variation was "slightly less than 1
watt", as Soon, Baliunas et al proposed. Yet, all these researchers
conclude to the need to postulate a positive feedback mechanism that
enhances climate response to solar 'forcings', Soon and his group going as
far as proposing a "climate hypersensitivity model" where substantially more
absorption of solar radiation occurs in the stratosphere [55]. This is only
necessary if one can establish the conversion rate to be ca. 0.27 deg
C/W/m2. Yet, simple thought suffices to suggest that this a rate must vary
with varying atmospheric pressure and gas density. Moreover, with respect
to latent heat, one cannot make rigid inferences about its quantity on the
basis of some of its byproducts, temperature and radiant photon energy.
Landscheidt quotes a profound remark of Juan G. Roederer relating precisely
to this fact - a vintage aetherometric fact that is also obvious to
non-aetherometric scientists, and is pregnant with still more consequences
than even they suspect - and he employs it to argue for the existence of
positive feedback processes:

"In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as
the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be
triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their
spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude" [56]

For example, since ozone formation releases near UV photons, but ozone
itself does not release blue and IR photons unless certain conditions are
present (those needed for the production of water and oxygen), low ground
ozone is a heat trap - retaining, as latent energy, the sensible heat that
must be released in the course of the allotropic cycle. Hence, there is
another aspect pertaining to the trapping of heat that is amplified in
surface atmospheres by man-made pollution: namely the role of atmospheric
free-radical pollutants in trapping latent heat, prominent amongst which is
the role of ground-level ozone.

But on an even more basic level - one that does not need to invoke any
aetherometric knowledge of ambipolar radiation, or an understanding of the
variations in UV photon production by solar radiation - a full or complete
account is yet to be made of the relative impact on weather systems and
climate of variables such as the 21.33 year sunspot cycle, the 9 to 12 year
oscillations of long and short solar orbitals in the plane of the ecliptic,
the quasi-biennial oscillation of stratospheric winds [57-58] and its
corresponding counterpart in the Southern Hemisphere.

In this context, we should cite as one of the important analytical
contributions the rather Aspdenian study by Landscheidt of the relation
between variations in solar radiation, solar rotation and orbital angular
momentum in the plane of the ecliptic. He identified a contribution of the
latter, on the order of 25%, to the total solar angular momentum [59], and
has, for more than two decades, been proposing a transfer of angular
momentum from the Sun's orbital in the ecliptic to the Sun's rotation around
its axis. Foukal suggested that increases in production of UV and X-ray
photons associated with stellar radiation could be a consequence of the
differential rotation of the solar chromosphere (fastest at the equator), ie
the process behind cyclic formation of sunspots and faculae [52]. He further
suggested that only stars with high rates of rotation had high energy
photons associated with their radiation spectra. Landscheidt's proposal
explains what feeds the cyclic changes in that solar rotation, and serves as
its periodic accelerator. This is of great consequence, first because the
process in question is likely the main factor altering the intensity and
spectral composition of solar radiation, and secondly because, in terms of
aetherometric theory, the motion of the Sun in the plane of the ecliptic is
matched by a periodic motion of the Sun and the entire solar system
transversely to the ecliptic so that the total angular momentum of the Sun
is a still greater quantity than heretofore suggested, and thus constitutes
a still greater reservoir for momentum transfer.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith
is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting
to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched and
footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan rants
from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one or
two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly shredded by
the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our) habits"
is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on prohibition
("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An example of
prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR; and example of
compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of summer gasoline
(thankfully suspended for this year).


Fritz believes that if we had a sentient being in the White House, and that
person said this...

"I urge all of you to find ways to reduce your fuel consumption. Reexamine
your vehicle buying habits for instanct"

.....that this would be an example of someone controlling his behavior. To
any sane person, it's a reasonable request. Not to Fritz.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their
faith is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door,
attempting to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched
and footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan
rants from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one
or two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly
shredded by the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for
example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our)
habits" is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on
prohibition ("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An
example of prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR;
and example of compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of
summer gasoline (thankfully suspended for this year).


Fritz believes that if we had a sentient being in the White House, and
that person said this...

"I urge all of you to find ways to reduce your fuel consumption.
Reexamine your vehicle buying habits for instanct"

....that this would be an example of someone controlling his behavior.
To any sane person, it's a reasonable request. Not to Fritz.


If you have a problem with Fritz, address that problem with Fritz. Since
you can't identify a problem you have with me, I have nothing to gain by
entertaining your attempts to debate Fritz by using me as a proxy. Come
back when you're rather less confused.

Just like a fundie preacher accuses a non believer of being a "sinner" or
"damned" etc. so goes the faithful of the global warming alarmist cult.


LMAO


Just more proof that the real purpose of the GW cult is political

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith
is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting
to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched and
footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan rants
from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one or
two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly shredded by
the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our) habits"
is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on prohibition
("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An example of
prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR; and example of
compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of summer gasoline
(thankfully suspended for this year).

LMAO

It is so easy to expose the GW alarmists for what they really are.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith
is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting
to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched and
footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan rants
from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one or
two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly shredded by
the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our) habits"
is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on prohibition
("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An example of
prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR; and example of
compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of summer gasoline
(thankfully suspended for this year).

Typical of the "faithful" he knows what others thinks LMAO.
The "faithful" aren't usually so blatant as to knock on doors, because
they would be exposed for what they really are. Instead, they go through
the back window......via taxation.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

I don't know about you, but a fine cigar after dinner on the deck
listening to the water feature and watching the koi swing around in
the ornamental pond is very relaxing.

Nothing like the fine aroma of a good cigar to set off a pleasant
spring/summer evening.

And as we all know, relaxing is an important part of reducing stress.

So in a way, smoking is good for me. :)

Good for you?? What about stinking out the neighbourhood for blocks
around your house?