On Mar 27, 4:56�am, John H. wrote:
Provided without comment:

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

* * * * * John H

I watched the first 25 minutes.

Far be it from me to say whether the current warming trend is caused
by man or not, but the producers of your film flagrantly contradict
one of their key initial arguments somewhere around the 21 minute
mark. Prior to this point, they emphasize that the global climate
cooled during the post WWII industrial expansion, with temperatures
actually falling a bit from 1945 to the mid 80's.

At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was
right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they
really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al
Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the
relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising
only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of
time.

Your film doesn't seem to dispute that CO2 is rising. It doesn't
dispute that global temperatures have been increasing. It does suffer
a logical meltdown when it tries to simultaneously claim that the
earth was cooling until 1985 *and* that rising CO2 is an effect,
rather than a cause of global warming and is an indicator that lags by
decades, or even centuries. According to the hypothesis presented, we
should now be just barely able to detect any increase in CO2 resulting
from the warming that began in 1985. In fact, the levels of greenhouse
gasses are increasing at rates unprecedented in modern history-
something pretty inconsistent with a theory that elevation of CO2 and
other gasses occurs naturally after every extended period of global
warming.

What does this have to do with boating? Perhaps a lot. This week I'm
investigating a situation where environmental extremists nearly shut
down our recent boat show. I discovered that a City of Seattle
ordinance makes it illegal to discharge soap into a storm sewer system
or directly into a body of water.
The ****er: the city politicians had enough sense of self preservation
to write in
an exemption for "the private washing of automobiles and trucks",
thereby allowing the owners of a million automobiles in this area to
dump soap and cleaning chemicals into the storm sewers (which drain to
lakes and the sound) without fear of consequence. Their rationale was
that they would also encourage people to use commercial car washes,
(which recycle wash and rinse water). Nobody operates a commercial
boat wash with a water recycling
system, and owners of larger boats have no option except to wash them
in their slips. Everybody washing a boat with soap is technically in
violation of the law, but because there are so few boaters in the
population there is little fear of political backlash. Much of the non-
boating public assumes that only rich SOB's own a boat in the first
place, and nobody cares if they have to suffer a bit- it only serves
them right.

If the global warming thing gets up momentum, we could very easily see
regulations that curtail the discretionary use of fossil fuels. Boats,
RV's, ATV's,
private planes, etc may someday have to apply for a "trip permit" and
make a case that a specific use is business related rather than a mere
pleasure trip.
Or, perhaps we'll see a tax of $1 or $2 applied at the fuel dock with
the excuse that the proceeds will go to combat global warming caused
by boat exhaust. In reality, of course, the proceeds of such a tax
would only support a large group of new government employees which
would create plenty of CO2 discharge as they jaw-jack about the
problem and accomplish almost nothing.

As far as your film goes; never put blind faith in any presentation
that includes only one side of an argument or where the opposing
viewpoint is characterized by the presenter rather than described by
the opposition. (Radio talk shows do this all the time. A liberal host
will say "Conservatives all believe......." and of course the
conservative hosts are quick to tell you what "Liberals all
believe....".)


Very few people deny that the earth is warming up. It appeared that
most of the dozen or so scientists they rounded up from all over the
world to make the film you posted also agree that the earth is warming
up- but they deny that human activity could have any influence on that
warming. My unscientific opinion is that the earth has a natural
heating and cooling cycle that we would be powerless to control and
that organisms will adapt to changes (or become extinct) as the
climate gradually shifts. It is also my opinion that if there is any
chance we have interrupted or accelerated the natural heating and
cooling cycle we just may have created a situation where organisms
will not be able to adapt quickly enough. We need to remain open to
the possibility that man has altered our climate and study the
evidence objectively. Turning this issue into a BIGOIL vs. the Greens
political crap fest does us all a disservice. We shouldn't look for a
political answer (on either side) to a scientific issue.

Any idea who sponsored or produced your particular propaganda piece?
Al Gore took credit for his.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:24:26 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
Provided without comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer?
Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are
poisoining the environment.
We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way
up
here and dumps on us.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html


To whom are you writing? I didn't do the documentary, and you obviously
didn't watch it.


--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

Duh..who posted the link??
No I didn't sit and watch all 70 odd minutes of lies. The opening 7 or 8
minutes was enough.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:56�am, John H. wrote:
Provided without comment:

�http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

� � � � � John H

I watched the first 25 minutes.


At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was
right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they
really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al
Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the
relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising
only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of
time.


Play the audience for stupid? Please. It's a right-wing apologetica. The
audience doesn't have to be *played* for stupid.

Harry Krause wrote:
Stan (the Man) wrote:
\

Being misinformed
by ambitious politicians who are in need of a cause
--
Stan


That's as good an explanation for the mess in Iraq as any.

I agree, although probably not for your reasons.

--
Stan

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:24:26 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
Provided without comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer?
Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are
poisoining the environment.
We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up
here and dumps on us.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html


To whom are you writing? I didn't do the documentary, and you obviously
didn't watch it.


--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

On 27 Mar 2007 08:32:14 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Mar 27, 4:56?am, John H. wrote:
Provided without comment:

(ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

I watched the first 25 minutes.

Far be it from me to say whether the current warming trend is caused
by man or not, but the producers of your film flagrantly contradict
one of their key initial arguments somewhere around the 21 minute
mark. Prior to this point, they emphasize that the global climate
cooled during the post WWII industrial expansion, with temperatures
actually falling a bit from 1945 to the mid 80's.

At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was
right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they
really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al
Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the
relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising
only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of
time.

Your film doesn't seem to dispute that CO2 is rising. It doesn't
dispute that global temperatures have been increasing. It does suffer
a logical meltdown when it tries to simultaneously claim that the
earth was cooling until 1985 *and* that rising CO2 is an effect,
rather than a cause of global warming and is an indicator that lags by
decades, or even centuries. According to the hypothesis presented, we
should now be just barely able to detect any increase in CO2 resulting
from the warming that began in 1985. In fact, the levels of greenhouse
gasses are increasing at rates unprecedented in modern history-
something pretty inconsistent with a theory that elevation of CO2 and
other gasses occurs naturally after every extended period of global
warming.

What does this have to do with boating? Perhaps a lot. This week I'm
investigating a situation where environmental extremists nearly shut
down our recent boat show. I discovered that a City of Seattle
ordinance makes it illegal to discharge soap into a storm sewer system
or directly into a body of water.
The ****er: the city politicians had enough sense of self preservation
to write in
an exemption for "the private washing of automobiles and trucks",
thereby allowing the owners of a million automobiles in this area to
dump soap and cleaning chemicals into the storm sewers (which drain to
lakes and the sound) without fear of consequence. Their rationale was
that they would also encourage people to use commercial car washes,
(which recycle wash and rinse water). Nobody operates a commercial
boat wash with a water recycling
system, and owners of larger boats have no option except to wash them
in their slips. Everybody washing a boat with soap is technically in
violation of the law, but because there are so few boaters in the
population there is little fear of political backlash. Much of the non-
boating public assumes that only rich SOB's own a boat in the first
place, and nobody cares if they have to suffer a bit- it only serves
them right.

If the global warming thing gets up momentum, we could very easily see
regulations that curtail the discretionary use of fossil fuels. Boats,
RV's, ATV's,
private planes, etc may someday have to apply for a "trip permit" and
make a case that a specific use is business related rather than a mere
pleasure trip.
Or, perhaps we'll see a tax of $1 or $2 applied at the fuel dock with
the excuse that the proceeds will go to combat global warming caused
by boat exhaust. In reality, of course, the proceeds of such a tax
would only support a large group of new government employees which
would create plenty of CO2 discharge as they jaw-jack about the
problem and accomplish almost nothing.

As far as your film goes; never put blind faith in any presentation
that includes only one side of an argument or where the opposing
viewpoint is characterized by the presenter rather than described by
the opposition. (Radio talk shows do this all the time. A liberal host
will say "Conservatives all believe......." and of course the
conservative hosts are quick to tell you what "Liberals all
believe....".)


Very few people deny that the earth is warming up. It appeared that
most of the dozen or so scientists they rounded up from all over the
world to make the film you posted also agree that the earth is warming
up- but they deny that human activity could have any influence on that
warming. My unscientific opinion is that the earth has a natural
heating and cooling cycle that we would be powerless to control and
that organisms will adapt to changes (or become extinct) as the
climate gradually shifts. It is also my opinion that if there is any
chance we have interrupted or accelerated the natural heating and
cooling cycle we just may have created a situation where organisms
will not be able to adapt quickly enough. We need to remain open to
the possibility that man has altered our climate and study the
evidence objectively. Turning this issue into a BIGOIL vs. the Greens
political crap fest does us all a disservice. We shouldn't look for a
political answer (on either side) to a scientific issue.

Any idea who sponsored or produced your particular propaganda piece?
Al Gore took credit for his.

My film?

It was offered for information only. I'm not about to argue it's merits,
etc. You and others have discussed one side of the issue. Here is a
discussion of the other side.

No arguing or fighting necessary.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:33:18 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:24:26 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
Provided without comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer?
Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are
poisoining the environment.
We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way
up
here and dumps on us.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html


To whom are you writing? I didn't do the documentary, and you obviously
didn't watch it.


--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

Duh..who posted the link??
No I didn't sit and watch all 70 odd minutes of lies. The opening 7 or 8
minutes was enough.


It's good to have an open mind!
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:56�am, John H. wrote:

Provided without comment:

�http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

� � � � � John H


I watched the first 25 minutes.

Far be it from me to say whether the current warming trend is caused
by man or not, but the producers of your film flagrantly contradict
one of their key initial arguments somewhere around the 21 minute
mark. Prior to this point, they emphasize that the global climate
cooled during the post WWII industrial expansion, with temperatures
actually falling a bit from 1945 to the mid 80's.

At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was
right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they
really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al
Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the
relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising
only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of
time.

Your film doesn't seem to dispute that CO2 is rising. It doesn't
dispute that global temperatures have been increasing. It does suffer
a logical meltdown when it tries to simultaneously claim that the
earth was cooling until 1985 *and* that rising CO2 is an effect,
rather than a cause of global warming and is an indicator that lags by
decades, or even centuries. According to the hypothesis presented, we
should now be just barely able to detect any increase in CO2 resulting
from the warming that began in 1985. In fact, the levels of greenhouse
gasses are increasing at rates unprecedented in modern history-
something pretty inconsistent with a theory that elevation of CO2 and
other gasses occurs naturally after every extended period of global
warming.

What does this have to do with boating? Perhaps a lot. This week I'm
investigating a situation where environmental extremists nearly shut
down our recent boat show. I discovered that a City of Seattle
ordinance makes it illegal to discharge soap into a storm sewer system
or directly into a body of water.
The ****er: the city politicians had enough sense of self preservation
to write in
an exemption for "the private washing of automobiles and trucks",
thereby allowing the owners of a million automobiles in this area to
dump soap and cleaning chemicals into the storm sewers (which drain to
lakes and the sound) without fear of consequence. Their rationale was
that they would also encourage people to use commercial car washes,
(which recycle wash and rinse water). Nobody operates a commercial
boat wash with a water recycling
system, and owners of larger boats have no option except to wash them
in their slips. Everybody washing a boat with soap is technically in
violation of the law, but because there are so few boaters in the
population there is little fear of political backlash. Much of the non-
boating public assumes that only rich SOB's own a boat in the first
place, and nobody cares if they have to suffer a bit- it only serves
them right.

If the global warming thing gets up momentum, we could very easily see
regulations that curtail the discretionary use of fossil fuels. Boats,
RV's, ATV's,
private planes, etc may someday have to apply for a "trip permit" and
make a case that a specific use is business related rather than a mere
pleasure trip.
Or, perhaps we'll see a tax of $1 or $2 applied at the fuel dock with
the excuse that the proceeds will go to combat global warming caused
by boat exhaust. In reality, of course, the proceeds of such a tax
would only support a large group of new government employees which
would create plenty of CO2 discharge as they jaw-jack about the
problem and accomplish almost nothing.

As far as your film goes; never put blind faith in any presentation
that includes only one side of an argument or where the opposing
viewpoint is characterized by the presenter rather than described by
the opposition. (Radio talk shows do this all the time. A liberal host
will say "Conservatives all believe......." and of course the
conservative hosts are quick to tell you what "Liberals all
believe....".)


Very few people deny that the earth is warming up. It appeared that
most of the dozen or so scientists they rounded up from all over the
world to make the film you posted also agree that the earth is warming
up- but they deny that human activity could have any influence on that
warming. My unscientific opinion is that the earth has a natural
heating and cooling cycle that we would be powerless to control and
that organisms will adapt to changes (or become extinct) as the
climate gradually shifts. It is also my opinion that if there is any
chance we have interrupted or accelerated the natural heating and
cooling cycle we just may have created a situation where organisms
will not be able to adapt quickly enough. We need to remain open to
the possibility that man has altered our climate and study the
evidence objectively. Turning this issue into a BIGOIL vs. the Greens
political crap fest does us all a disservice. We shouldn't look for a
political answer (on either side) to a scientific issue.

Any idea who sponsored or produced your particular propaganda piece?
Al Gore took credit for his.



Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you
have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you
ask about are answered in the film.

made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin

- more information on it can be found at
http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html

Jack Redington

On Mar 27, 8:46�pm, Jack Redington wrote:




Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you
have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you
ask about are answered in the film.

made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin

* - more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi...

Jack Redington- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all
be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will
stop learning.

My objections a

1) one sided (as was Al Gore's)
2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every
detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in
general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details.
3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing
indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985

On 28 Mar 2007 00:13:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:46?pm, Jack Redington wrote:




Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you
have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you
ask about are answered in the film.

made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin

- more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi...

Jack Redington- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all
be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will
stop learning.

My objections a

1) one sided (as was Al Gore's)
2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every
detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in
general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details.
3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing
indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985


Chuck, please recommend a documentary that meets your approval. The CO2
numbers, which you'll see when you go back to watch the whole documentary,
lag the temperature numbers by some 800 years, not 40.

I am surprised that you and Don will not watch the whole thing. Perhaps
learning something different is a no-no?

Lastly, I highly recommend a book written by a liberal. The book is "The
Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. I'll make it easy for you:

http://tinyurl.com/2nabsq


--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H