Gene Kearns wrote:

...This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration.

The term "biostitute" has been appropriately coined.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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


Actually, smoking *is* good for some people in terms of "relaxing" or
"calming the nerves", which is what the 1950's doctors claimed. The links
to cancer, heart disease and other smoking induced problems had not been
made at that time.

Obviously now it is well established that the risks of those problems far
outweigh the "calming" benefit.

RCE

In article ,
says...

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

No new boat. Maybe a couple of seasons before I can pull it off.

I've had little, if any time to cruise in the past 2 years and I'm still
nose to the grindstone. Hopefully, things will lighten up by next
season and I'll have more time to devote to passions.

In the meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you could ask some of your party-
mates to see what they can do about getting fuel prices a bit lower.
Even if I had time to make a new acquisition, I'm not sure I could
afford to run it...

Hope you're well.

jps

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?

Once and for all. Al Gore NEVER said he "invented the internet".

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

I thought I retired. :)

If my dad's any indication, then don't retire. He's 84, and still runs the
business. He also runs outside people who wish they'd stayed in school
longer after talking to him. Banks visit to offer us lines of credit. They
send the young meat on these errands, and I'm not sure if that's good or bad
for them. My dad teaches them the banking business, including regulations
that might have changed two days earlier. Much of the time, they didn't even
know that a particular category of regulation existed. Must be tough
learning a business when you're 26 and your supervisor is 28.

He was in the hospital for a hip replacement in December. I was there when
some accounting person came to his room to discuss insurance, Medicaid blah
blah whatever. The woman was stumbling badly as she leafed through the
paperwork. My dad went into multi-track mode, analyzing what the Knicks were
doing on TV, tossing in some comments on the architecture of the church
across the street, and directing the lady to specific pages & paragraphs in
her paperwork.

Amazing, but scary. Don't *ever* retire.

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

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?

Once and for all. Al Gore NEVER said he "invented the internet".


That's not was Limbaugh says.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
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?

Oh come on. I was in a cigar bar last week with a couple of friends. None of
them smelled awful. The place had plenty of moving air, and that's the key.
Almost any burnt substance smells nasty when it just hangs there.

"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.


I use him because the two of you are (slightly) functioning as a tag team.
So far, he hasn't begun his standard rant about being controlled, but it's
lurking there. I suspect that behind your facade, you've got the same
issues.

"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).

These are controls that you either agree to, or you get the laws changed.
But, we all pick & choose the ones we like, right? I'd be outraged if a
child molester got no jail time, but from his point of view, it would be
perfect. I see ancient vehicles belching clouds of blue smoke and I know
that's perfect for the owners - nobody stops them. I'd like to see them
removed from their vehicles and told that until they can afford to run their
business, which includes vehicle maintenance, they are now officially out of
work.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"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.



I know what you think because of what you've clearly said in the past. The
scientists you call "fanatics" have their reasons for believing so strongly
in a theory. You have your reasons for believing the opposite, and those
reasons have absolutely NOTHING to do with being scientifically correct. You
want to stop the research in its tracks because you know it would annoy
people you don't like.