"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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. :)

The sad part is we have come to expect such stupidity from the politicians.

On Apr 4, 12:04�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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. *:)

What article? Did I miss some portion of the thread?

My comment about polar ice melt doesn't rely in any way on an
individual newspaper article.

Check out the NASA satellite images of the North Pole, 1979-2005.

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


Either NASA has been paid off by liberal propagandists or there is a
measurable reduction of about 9% per decade in polar ice.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"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).


But global warming fits perfectly into harry's socialist mindset


Two international leaders have said it best. Margot Wallstrom, the EU's
Environment Commisioner states that Kyoto is "about levelling the
playing field for big businesses worldwide." French President Jacques
Chirac said during a speech at the Hague in November 2000 that
represents "the first component of authentic global governance

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c..._id=&Issue_id=


"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral
environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to
bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Environment Minister

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC

"Whether you believe the science [of global warming] or not is beside
the point. Policy should be more about risk than proof." Jon Anda Morgan
Stanley Vice Chairman

"If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of
people out of jobs." Philip Stott Biogeographer University of
London

"We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then
flow to climate scientists." John Christy IPCC contributor

"So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might
have." Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford
University

"We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period" Confided to
geophysicist David Deming by the IPCC (1995)


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

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?

What 'group' is this, Chuck?

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.

Do you have some information from your 'GWB' faction? Or are you just being
contentious?
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H

On Apr 6, 2:55�pm, John H. wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:





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?

What 'group' is this, Chuck?

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.

Do you have some information from your 'GWB' faction? Or are you just being
contentious?
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

* * * * * John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are several examples of messages from the GWB (global warming is
bogus) group right here in this thread.

On 6 Apr 2007 15:45:14 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Apr 6, 2:55?pm, John H. wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:





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?

What 'group' is this, Chuck?

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.

Do you have some information from your 'GWB' faction? Or are you just being
contentious?
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are several examples of messages from the GWB (global warming is
bogus) group right here in this thread.

Ah. I thought maybe you'd found an administration source who denied global
warming. In other words, you were just being contentious. Shameful.
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H

John H. wrote:

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


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?


What 'group' is this, Chuck?

Chuckie ignores the demonization of anyone that is skeptical of GW by
the alarmist crowd, being bought by Exxon, being "denialist" etc.


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.


Do you have some information from your 'GWB' faction? Or are you just being
contentious?

On 07 Apr 2007 22:43:32 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

In message ps.com, Chuck
Gould sprach forth the following:

There are several examples of messages from the GWB (global warming is
bogus) group right here in this thread.


Damn I just keep missing your responses to these two charts:


http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlit...climate_3a.gif

The northern hemisphere land temperatures are plotted with the solar cycle
length (Friss-Christensen and Lassen; 1991).

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlit...climate_3b.gif

The globally averaged sea surface temperatures are plotted with the sunspot
numbers (Reid; 1999). Both sunspot number and solar cycle length are
proxies for the amount of solar energy that Earth receives. The similarity
of these curves is evidence that the sun has influenced the climate of the
last 150 years.

For something real interesting, go he http://tinyurl.com/2fpwdt and
click on "House Hearing on Global Climate Change". Byorn Lomborg has
written a great book entitled "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He doesn't
deny the occurrence of global warming, but he has some economist's ideas on
approaches to the problem.
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H

John H. wrote:
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

If donnie believes that CO2 emissions are poisoning the environment, he
needs to stop breathing to stop his contribution to the poisoning.

On Mar 28, 11:03 am, 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. :)

Only a complete idiot think that global warming doesn't exist.