On Apr 3, 6:45�pm, Animal05 wrote:


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]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmmm. Who has "personalized" global warming any more than the group
who
insists either that it isn't happening or that a polluted atmosphere
is not scientifically different from a pristine atmosphere? Every
other statement from that group seems to begin "Al Gore wants us to
believe....." or "Liberals all want us to believe....." If
personalization of the issue means that the argument is bogus (and I
tend to agree that those without anything intelligent to say go
straight to personalities every time), the folks living in GWB land -
as in Global Warming is Bogus- have been far more guilty of that than
the global warming believers.

The global warming believers think the phenomenon is the problem,
while the GWB- (Global Warming is Bogus)- faction more often seem to
think that the folks with an opposing opinion are actually the
problem.

This should never have been made into a political issue. The right
wing's hatred for Al Gore has caused a lot of people to turn a blind
eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be
considering the entire body of evidence. As it is, it's almost like an
election; dueling versions of the truth, and you get to choose which
version you want to fight for. Too bad.

As boaters we need to be nervous, indeed very nervous, about possible
political and legislative fallout from the global warming concerns. As
far as the 90% of the public who *don't* own a motorized boat are
concerned, those "rich" guys in their 24-foot yachts are a low
priority use of fossil fuel.
We can get dumped on by the politicians, eager to show that they are
doing something about the situation, and we're a perfect target
because we don't have enough votes to make a difference. :-(

However, just because it might be bad news for boaters, auto
manufacturers, smoke stack industrialists, etc etc etc doesn't mean
that we should categorically deny that a problem exists.......unless
it can be conclusively shown (and it has not) that a problem really
doesn't. Wishing and hoping won't make it go away.

It's way too early in the debate to draw final conclusions, but "We
hate the left wing in general and Al Gore in particular so therefore
we think gobal warming has to be a pinko conspiracy", is *not*
scientific reasoning. Until the GWB (Global Warming is Bogus) faction
stops making this scientific question into a personal or political
issue at every opportunity, criticism of the scientific methods used
or not used by the folks who think that climate change is a problem is
somewhat hypocritical.

If you boat, fly a plane, drive an RV, etc- this issue could screw up
your hobby in a major way.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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.

It if is bad then it should be banned and not regulbated and taxed.

---------

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?

Just another excuse to control people's behavior. You would think they
could have a guy riding a bicycle through the neighborhoods on Saturday
afternoon using his nose to ferret out those evil BBQ grills.



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

Worshipping at the altar of Global Warming.

Bingo!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
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 labor unions (jobs for dirty coal mines in the east) and
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


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.

Anti-science??????

OK, a question. How can the US affect the amount of carbon dioxide being
produced globally. We account for 25% of the worlds total man made carbon
dioxide, that's 5% of the total carbon dioxide produced worldwide. That
percentage is going to drop as the price of oil increases while the world
wide production is going to increase.
Perhaps we could encourage India and China to build more nuclear power
plants. opps..done that, Bush authorized funds for that and released
technologies to both those countries to make sure those power plants were
safe. Hmmm...what else. CAFE standards increase...opps, Bush is doing
that. Build more nuclear power plants here...doing that. Release
technologies for synthetic fuels ....doing that. Fund research...doing
that. Higher efficiency for air conditioning systems..doing that. Higher
standards for insulation in homes...doing that. Perhaps a small tax on
carbon based fuel that goes entirely to subsidize retrofit insulation to
existing homes.

What more can be done? Please offer your suggestions.

You can believe that Bush now believes in man made global warming or you can
believe that the war on terror requires us to be less dependant on foreign
oil. Anything that reduces the worlds dependence on "Arab" oil is good for
the world and bad for terrorists. Jumping on the "global warming bandwagon
makes him more in tune with the political climate and gets his agenda
forward.

For my part it's good for this country to be less dependant on foreign oil
regardless of the reason you do it. I'd like to see sustainable renewable
energy sources developed.

On Apr 4, 7:16�am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:
In oglegroups.com, Chuck
Gould sprach forth the following:

The right
wing's hatred for Al Gore

"There are those who believe that global warming is manmade. *In Al Gore we
apparently have found the man." - Dick Cheney

has caused a lot of people to turn a blind
eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be
considering the entire body of evidence.

And Al Gore is the most guilty of not doing so.


Thanks, Fred. I could not have asked or a more perfect validation of
my point.
:-)

We need to accept that this really isn't about George Bush, Rush
Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, or Al Gore. It's about a climate trend that
according to objective and scientific measurement is eradicating
glacial ice at both poles. Our prevailing winds and ocean currents
depend on a large temperature differential at the poles vs. the
equator. Screw up the winds and curents, and life on this planet will
change so dramatically the survivors will be telling tales about life
in the 20th and 21st centuries in way that will make conditions today
seem like a mythical paradise.

Somebody up thread commented, "Scientists have predicted that my
particular section of the world will actually benefit from several
degrees of global warming." Not really. We are each dependent on the
health of the entire planet. The population shifts from areas that are
only marginally inhabitable now and could become entirely arid or
disappear under rising sea levels will have social consequences. Many
of those social consequences could be violent, as greater numbers of
people squabble over diminishing drinking water and other resources.

The dominant life forms on earth have been largely eradicated by
climate changes in the past. (Seen a T-Rex lately?) This could easily
happen again. Would it happen without any help from man? Maybe.....but
even if it were going to happen anyway does that excuse man for
possibly accelerating the process? Even *if* this were an entirely
natural phenomonon and modifyng the mixture of gas in the atmosphere
can be shown to have no effect, why would we just sit back and submit
to the will of nature without attempting to find a way to reduce the
risk?

The disappearing polar ice is a problem. Folks who don't understand
how the winds and currents of the oceans dictate weather on this
planet and how those winds are currents are dependent on a temperature
differential between the
poles and the tropics might do well to do some basic reading on that
issue before concluding that a disruption in temperature and the
elimination of polar ice is a non-issue. Any suggestion that the
change will be *positive* is truly nuts.

Those of us willing to pay $5-$7 a gallon for boat fuel a few years
from now will be able to carry on in the face of steadily escalating
fuel costs; but the political
fallout from the global warming situation may find us all *ordered*
off the water.
Making a realistic, non-political evaluation of the situation at this
point and (if necessary) taking some moderate precautions may prevent
or postpone the day when recreational use of fossil fuel is banned, at
least until most of us are either dead or too darn old to boat
anymore. :-)

A footnote:

There's apparently no limit to the devious devices liberals will
employ to hype the global warming issue. They have even paid off NASA
to Photoshop the ice away from satellite images of the north
pole! :-)

This link will bring up an interactive site where moving a slider
under a satellite image of the north pole shows how and where the ice
has disappeared since 1979. There is also some fairly objective
scientific explanation included, along with a comment that we can't
know whether or not, for certain, how much of an effect man's
activities are having on the climate change. The site also discusses
normal seasonal changes in the size of the ice cap and other useful
facets of the issue.

http://www.everybodysweather.com/Sta...lter/index.htm


At the current rate of ice loss (about 9% per decade) the planet could
soon be in serious trouble from disrupted winds and ocean currents and
the resulting "weird weather".

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:21:02 -0400, Jeff Rigby wrote:


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 labor unions (jobs for dirty coal mines in
the east) and 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

Let's see, Montana has 50 billion short tons of low sulfur coal, Wyoming
has 25 billion. Utah? 1/4 billion short tons. Yup, it's Clinton's
fault.

On 4 Apr 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

As it is, it's almost like an
election; dueling versions of the truth, and you get to choose which
version you want to fight for. Too bad.

Unfortunately this happens even among scientists and others who should
know better.

The evidence that global warming is happening is fairly compelling.
It has happened before however, and so has global cooling.

What is not clear is why, and whether anything can be realistically
done about it.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:21:02 -0400, Jeff Rigby wrote:


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 labor unions (jobs for dirty coal mines in
the east) and 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

Let's see, Montana has 50 billion short tons of low sulfur coal, Wyoming
has 25 billion. Utah? 1/4 billion short tons. Yup, it's Clinton's
fault.
There is low sulphur and extreme Low Sulphur called Super Compiant

http://www.nationalguild.com/fridayreports/122796.html Three billion tons
of SUPER-COMPLIANT coal

President Clinton locks up major US coal deposit.
In a pre-election move, President Clinton has created a controversial
National Monument, which locks in an estimated **7 billion tonnes** of
low-sulfur coal, said to be worth up to US$ 1000 billion. The 700,000
hectare Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the Utah desert
includes coal leases which were to become a 6000 hectare underground mine
exporting to East Asia. The leases, on Federal Government land, are not
revoked but the new designation means that Washington will impose
restrictions which prevent mining. A Republican Senator lamented that the
President was locking up the most environmentally benign coal in the USA.
The action did not require Congressional approval. AFR 20/9/96

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:11:59 -0400, Jeff Rigby wrote:


Let's see, Montana has 50 billion short tons of low sulfur coal,
Wyoming has 25 billion. Utah? 1/4 billion short tons. Yup, it's
Clinton's fault.
There is low sulphur and extreme Low Sulphur called Super Compiant

http://www.nationalguild.com/fridayreports/122796.html Three billion
tons
of SUPER-COMPLIANT coal

President Clinton locks up major US coal deposit. In a pre-election
move, President Clinton has created a controversial National Monument,
which locks in an estimated **7 billion tonnes** of low-sulfur coal,
said to be worth up to US$ 1000 billion. The 700,000 hectare Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the Utah desert includes coal
leases which were to become a 6000 hectare underground mine exporting to
East Asia. The leases, on Federal Government land, are not revoked but
the new designation means that Washington will impose restrictions which
prevent mining. A Republican Senator lamented that the President was
locking up the most environmentally benign coal in the USA. The action
did not require Congressional approval. AFR 20/9/96

Frankly, I prefer the governments estimates.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/re...hapter3p4.html

On 4 Apr 2007 09:18:36 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

It's about a climate trend that according to objective and
scientific measurement is eradicating glacial ice at both poles

Youi know - you guys are WAY too easy.

The article was an April's Fools joke done by a Russian newspaper. And
as usual, nobody even thought about the absurdity of the whole thing
and charged into the fray with hardly a seconds pause.

Way too easy. :)