On Mar 28, 5:26�am, John H. wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, but I can't recommend a propaganda piece for either side of the
question that won't incorporate the fatal flaws of all propaganda
pieces. As far as "learning something" goes, it's important to
evaluate the motivations of the aspiring teacher before gobbling down
the mental gruel. One can "learn" all about jews, blacks, catholics,
and homosexuals on any of the KKK websites, for example, but most
folks won't do so because the bias is so strong.

Thanks for recommending a book by a liberal, but liberal bias is no
more useful in this debate than is right wing bias.

Who do I trust? Being a mariner, I tend to trust the NOAA. Oddly
enough, I also trust- in this case, the President of the United
States, George W. Bush. Bush oversees the Administrative branch of the
US Government and does so very actively. Throughout his first six
years in office he has never been shy about firing cabinet members,
federal prosecutors, and others who don't toe his political,
philosophical, or administrative line. I don't say that to start some
discussion about the president- only to point out that heads of
important departments and agencies need to function in a way that
meets his personal approval or risk being dismisssed. Also, I am very
eager to agree that this practice is no different under GWB than it
has been under almost every president since Washington.

I think we can all agree that Geroge Bush isn't some "left wing enviro-
nut".
Here's what one of the agencies that report to the POTUS says about
the global warming issue:


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

(Their climate measurements and models are provided by NOAA)


Everybody who burns fossil fuel for recreation should be following the
global warming issue very intently. As I have been confirming yet
again in my discussions with state and city environmental agencies
this week regarding the boat soap issue, boaters are easy targets for
meaningless grandstand regulations and restrictions because there are
so few of us. A band-aid on public problems, with very little cost to
the public at large.

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.

I don't think their ideas are all that new. These have been around for
20 some odd years. They have just been suppressed. When one can't create
a argument against an opposing view, the actions have - on this subject
been not to allow the view to be debated and discussed. Or to discredit
the messenger when one has no basis for discrediting the message.

I wonder how many of the big TV networks will pick this up and air it ?
I watch a two hour long program on one of the big TV networks that was
suppose to be on global climet. But ended up being on polution in
general. For some reason they just could not seem to locate anyone who
would not say that man was not responsable to the earths climent cycles.


My objections a

1) one sided (as was Al Gore's)

I can agree that they are only voicing their side. But one of the
problems with this debate all along is that we have been bombarded with
one sided material from goverment funded scientist saying that we as
people are having a big effect on climent. Yes I beleive that man has no
or little effect on the global climent. But I still watch programs and
read material from those whom I do not agree. Apparently you do not
agree with this, as you have such a passion for what you beleive. But
not the time to watch a 75 minute program that has a opposing view.

As I had stated before we need to have a real discusssion that is not
just from political whores who suck funds from the public feeling bin.
And these guys have the courage to stand up against the massive
political enviromental machine. They have more guts then most. They did
not hide who they are and what they really think. But have got their
point accross without the mainstream media being able to stop them. And
they didn't wear masks.

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.

As are all the documentaries that disagree with them as noted above. I
wonder what would happen if the billions of dollars provided to the
scientist that are at least saying they beleive man is controling the
worlds climent just stopped being avaiable ?

If the political winds changed how many would abandon their position
just got find a way to the money. No way to really know of course. The
people in this program are holding or have held some high level
positions in the field of earth science. I am sure the goverment is
going to be jumping at the chance to drop some of these billions the US
goverment is spending to further their research.

3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing
indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985

Maybe inconsistent with the folks who get their money from these
goverment programs and or grants. It does not mean their data is incorrect.

Cheers.

Jack Redington

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading?

I can't directly address that, but...

There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear
until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also
all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a
little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently
it's the same all over the state.

Global Warming my ass. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear
until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also
all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a
little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently
it's the same all over the state.

Global Warming my ass. :)

Spring is here. The lawn fertilizer guy just finished riding his
chemical cart around my lawn. Fertilizer and pre-emergent anti-crabgrass
formulae.

On 28 Mar 2007 06:30:53 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Mar 28, 5:26?am, John H. wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Thanks for recommending a book by a liberal, but liberal bias is no
more useful in this debate than is right wing bias.


Snippage

Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading?
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:03:29 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading?

I can't directly address that, but...

There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear
until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also
all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a
little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently
it's the same all over the state.

Global Warming my ass. :)

Yesterday we hit 80F. Today we'll be in the mid 70s. The yard work is
making me wish I'd bought a condo, but the golfing is nice!

Two weeks 'til launching!
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

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


BTW, the EPA site you referenced in another message was informative. It
doesn't have the 'world is ending' approach taken by so many others, nor
does it lay global warming at mankind's feet.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

On Mar 28, 9:17?am, John H. wrote:


BTW, the EPA site you referenced in another message was informative. It
doesn't have the 'world is ending' approach taken by so many others, nor
does it lay global warming at mankind's feet.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

Nor does it entirely exclude man as potential contributor to the
accelerating trend.

Anyway, you asked for a source that closely reflected my opinions
about the issue and I'm glad that you found that one informative.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:35:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Spring is here. The lawn fertilizer guy just finished riding his
chemical cart around my lawn. Fertilizer and pre-emergent anti-crabgrass
formulae.

Fascinating.

What kind of boat was he using?

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:35:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Spring is here. The lawn fertilizer guy just finished riding his
chemical cart around my lawn. Fertilizer and pre-emergent anti-crabgrass
formulae.

Fascinating.

What kind of boat was he using?


I had the pest guy out today and he was spraying for ants around the
border of my home. It really was facinating to watch him work. I feel
much better sharing this.

Tomorrow my wife and I will be going shopping for spring clothes.