On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:15:59 -0400, RJSmithers wrote:

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.


Today must be *the* pest control day! Superior came out and did my spring
service. They walked.

Yesterday I fertilized, put down a pre-emergent weed killer, and a grub
killer. I walked.

Maybe I don't need a treadmill after all.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:03:29 +0000, 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. :)

Weird winter. Around here, if I'm not mistaken, it was one of the top
five warmest winters on record, but the coldest February. But then, I
thought we were talking about climate, not weather. ;-)

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
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?


Relates to boats, as that chemical will become runoff to the local bay.
Causing lots of problems for the Chesapeake Bay boaters.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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



Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset.

Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is
silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor
(another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a
greenhouse gas).

I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this
issue. To call anyone with a realistic mindset based on SCIENCE a twit
points out your bias and lack of education.

In the recently heard supreme court case Mass. would benefit from a 5 degree
temp rise by 2100. They have not shown, to my knowledge, any loss or
potential loss from current EPA policies. I thought from the little I know
about the legal system that was a necessity for any legal case, you have to
show damages. If I am correct we just had the legal system make a political
decision, guess who voted for it.........Expect this to be overturned within
5 years.

Florida and Texas MIGHT have a case in that insect life won't get a die off
each year as temps don't reach freezing long enough.

The other STUFF that usually accompanies carbon dioxide out of power plant
smoke stacks is already being addressed. If you want stricter regulations
go for it.

If Clinton had not made the low sulfur coal in Utah off limits (he made it a
national park) then we could economically switch to that coal and at the
same time reduce emissions with tighter standards. As it is, this won't
happen because the anti carbon dioxide lobby will block it. So you in the
north above the US industrial belt get acid rain and yellow air to breathe.
I hope you like our political system. I think it stinks. no pun intended

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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


Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset.

Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is
silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor
(another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a
greenhouse gas).

I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this
issue.


I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more
anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the
awakening of Terry Schiavo.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.


I agree with allot of your observations. One point, carbon dioxide is about
the weakest greenhouse gas in all the gases that are listed as greenhouse
gases. It's 1/20th as effective as water vapor. Water vapor as clouds
during the day reduces earth warming and as high altitude clouds at night it
has greenhouse effects.

Such a weak greenhouse gas in sufficient quantities might and probably does
have an effect. Any increase in earths temperature due to the Sun warming
the earth (most probable) or carbon dioxide warming will be amplified by
water vapor. In the documentary cooling by water vapor induced clouds
during the day can be influenced by sunspot activity. In most cases of the
suns cycle without sunspots the water vapor acts to cool the earth. With
sunspots there are reduced clouds and water vapors role is primarily as a
greenhouse gas. We recently went through a sunspot cycle ending in 2004.

Harry Krause wrote:
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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



Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset.

Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did
is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water
vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon
dioxide as a greenhouse gas).

I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on
this issue.


I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more
anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the
awakening of Terry Schiavo.

We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points.

BAR wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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



Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset.


Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did
is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and
water vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as
carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas).

I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others
on this issue.



I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more
anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the
awakening of Terry Schiavo.


We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points.

THis fits "global warming to a tee.

Identifying pseudoscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called
pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the
accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to
meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.[18]

The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific
reasoning.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

* Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than
precise, and that lack specific measurements.[19]
* Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a
scientific description of the operational means in which a range of
numeric measurements can be obtained).[20]
* Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony,
i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible
additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible
(see: Occam's Razor)[21]
* Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical
jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
* Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific
theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations)
under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[22]

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

* Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the
event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also:
falsifiability)[23]
* Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has
not been shown to predict[24]
* Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be
true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[25]
* Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and
anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis
generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e.
hypothesis testing).[26]
* Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that
seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to
consider data that conflict with its claims.[27]
* Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests
on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific"
arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics
demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion
regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is
essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic
incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the
claimant.[28]
* Appeals to holism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims,
especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and
mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain
negative findings.[29]

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

* Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called
"science by press conference").[30] Some proponents of theories that
contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their work to
the often ego-bruising process of peer review, sometimes on the grounds
that peer review is inherently biased against claims that contradict
established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions
cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By
remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents
forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[31]
* Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to
reproduce the claimed results.[32]
* Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in
response to requests for review of data or methodology.[33]

Lack of progress

* Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its
claims.[34] Terrence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that
has changed very little in the past two millennia.[35]
* Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make
mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[36] By
contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they
have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence.[37]

Personalization of issues

* Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality,
suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of
beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their
(confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as
enemies.[38]
* Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific
community to suppress the results.[39]
* Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the
claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:54:47 -0400, BAR wrote:

We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points

Did you see the article about the EU banning outdoor barbecues because
they emit CO2? Apparently, it's going to be a 20 Euro permit for
every BBQ session.

---------

BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's
French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4
million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called
greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007,
residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling
session.

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax
legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect
burning grills.

Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html

-------------

The best part is that they are going to use helicopters to patrol
neighborhoods for illegal barbecues.

Let's see - 100 grams per BBQ for - what, hour and a half maybe versus
a helicopter which emits a kilogram or so of CO2 per minute?

It's not science or economics - it's religion, pure and simple.

Worshipping at the altar of Global Warming.

Hehe, that's great... now they'll start grilling indoors (to evade the bbq
police) and die from CO poisoning. Let's see how this beautiful piece of
legislation pans out... film at 11.

--Mike

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:54:47 -0400, BAR wrote:

We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points

Did you see the article about the EU banning outdoor barbecues because
they emit CO2? Apparently, it's going to be a 20 Euro permit for
every BBQ session.

---------

BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's
French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4
million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called
greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007,
residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling
session.

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax
legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect
burning grills.

Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html

-------------

The best part is that they are going to use helicopters to patrol
neighborhoods for illegal barbecues.

Let's see - 100 grams per BBQ for - what, hour and a half maybe versus
a helicopter which emits a kilogram or so of CO2 per minute?

It's not science or economics - it's religion, pure and simple.

Worshipping at the altar of Global Warming.