TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 08:38:46 -0400, BAR wrote:


Global warming is a cycle that is "proved" by the geological record.
Which clearly shows that humans are not the only cause of global
warming. The question is *how much* we influence it.


Not-At-All.

Remember when smog was being blamed for bringing about the next ice age
back in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's when global temperatures were
falling?




You remember that, eh? From the womb?

I asked if Gene remembered it. Like you, he's three days older than dirt.

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

NOYB wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 08:38:46 -0400, BAR wrote:


Global warming is a cycle that is "proved" by the geological record.
Which clearly shows that humans are not the only cause of global
warming. The question is *how much* we influence it.

Not-At-All.

Remember when smog was being blamed for bringing about the next ice age
back in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's when global temperatures were
falling?



You remember that, eh? From the womb?

I asked if Gene remembered it. Like you, he's three days older than dirt.




Indeed, Gene and I are from the days when you couldn't graduate from
high school unless you could read and think abstractly. That rule was
done away with just before you got to the eighth grade. :}

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

On May 4, 10:36 am, "Bo" wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message

...

On Fri, 04 May 2007 13:40:41 +0000, Bo wrote:

How about William Gray?

Just curious, do you Doctor shop, also? I'm sure you can find several
more, well credentialed, scientists to tell you what you want to hear,
but do you really want to listen?

No I don't doctor shop, but if I were diagnosed with a serious "condition" I
would certainly get more than one opinion.
I would also be leery of any doctor who recommended a specific "treatment"
if that doctor received a large portion of his income from the people who
created the "treatment".

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:53:51 -0400, HK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 08:38:46 -0400, BAR wrote:


Global warming is a cycle that is "proved" by the geological record.
Which clearly shows that humans are not the only cause of global
warming. The question is *how much* we influence it.

Not-At-All.

Remember when smog was being blamed for bringing about the next ice age
back in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's when global temperatures were
falling?



You remember that, eh? From the womb?

I asked if Gene remembered it. Like you, he's three days older than dirt.




Indeed, Gene and I are from the days when you couldn't graduate from
high school unless you could read and think abstractly. That rule was
done away with just before you got to the eighth grade. :}

What a sweetheart!

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
I also remember legislation (Clean Air Act,
for example) that has greatly reduced not only SMOG levels, but the
geometrically escalating quantities of it in the atmosphere. Where
would we be if we hadn't made those changes.....

How ironic. We reduced smog levels, which at the time were being blamed for
cooling global temperatures, and now we're facing warming global
temperatures.

So what's next? Reduced greenhouse gas emissions leading to another ice
age?

Perhaps one day you'll see the light...just like this octogenarian:

"Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of
American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the
University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology-now the Department of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences-in the 1970s he became the first director
of what's now the UW's Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He
has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was
identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently
cited climatologist in the world."

(He was one of the first scientists to tout the idea of anthrogenic climate
change, and was widely chastised for it. He also spearheaded the hysteria
back in 1970 about the coming of the next ice age. He has since switched
his views on the subject.)

Here's what he now has to say:

"Climate's always been changing and it's been changing rapidly at various
times, and so something was making it change in the past," he told us in an
interview this past winter. "Before there were enough people to make any
difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate,
yet the climate was changing, okay?"

"All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd," Bryson
continues. "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s,
before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice
Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."



http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:53:05 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 21:49:18 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


"HK" wrote in message
om...
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 08:38:46 -0400, BAR wrote:


Global warming is a cycle that is "proved" by the geological record.
Which clearly shows that humans are not the only cause of global
warming. The question is *how much* we influence it.


Not-At-All.

Remember when smog was being blamed for bringing about the next ice
age
back in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's when global temperatures were
falling?




You remember that, eh? From the womb?


His parents told him.... sort of like their rendition of Kent
State....

I asked if Gene remembered it. Like you, he's three days older than
dirt.

Certainly, I remember it. I also remember legislation (Clean Air Act,
for example) that has greatly reduced not only SMOG levels, but the
geometrically escalating quantities of it in the atmosphere. Where
would we be if we hadn't made those changes..... OH.... I forgot, you
crystal ball says humans effect no changes....


Human's effect only bad changes, especially if they're Americans.

Smog was actually surpressing the global warming. Didn't you know that?
sarcasm

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:53:05 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 21:49:18 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


"HK" wrote in message
m...
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 08:38:46 -0400, BAR wrote:


Global warming is a cycle that is "proved" by the geological record.
Which clearly shows that humans are not the only cause of global
warming. The question is *how much* we influence it.


Not-At-All.

Remember when smog was being blamed for bringing about the next ice age
back in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's when global temperatures were
falling?




You remember that, eh? From the womb?


His parents told him.... sort of like their rendition of Kent
State....

I asked if Gene remembered it. Like you, he's three days older than dirt.

Certainly, I remember it. I also remember legislation (Clean Air Act,
for example) that has greatly reduced not only SMOG levels, but the
geometrically escalating quantities of it in the atmosphere. Where
would we be if we hadn't made those changes..... OH.... I forgot, you
crystal ball says humans effect no changes....


Human's effect only bad changes, especially if they're Americans.

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:19:00 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:



Perhaps one day you'll see the light...just like this octogenarian:

"Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history
of
American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the
University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology-now the Department of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences-in the 1970s he became the first director
of what's now the UW's Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies.
He
has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was
identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently
cited climatologist in the world."

(He was one of the first scientists to tout the idea of anthrogenic
climate
change, and was widely chastised for it. He also spearheaded the hysteria
back in 1970 about the coming of the next ice age. He has since switched
his views on the subject.)

Here's what he now has to say:


So..... having ridiculed that genre of scientist, you now seek to cite
them as factually accurate? How incredibly bizarre!

Why ridicule a man whose career ended about 20 years ago?


Read my post again, Gene. I'm not ridiculing him. Instead, I'm praising
him for having the courage to admit that he was wrong back in the 60's and
70's.

And who do you suppose is going to fund scientists who dispute the concept
of global warming?

There is a lot more money to be made by companies like Dupont, GE, Alcoa,
etc. if the anthropogenic global warming hoax causes a reduction in the use
of fossil fuels....but you conveniently ignore that fact, and only point to
funding by the "oil interests".

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

NOYB wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:19:00 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


Perhaps one day you'll see the light...just like this octogenarian:

"Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history
of
American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the
University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology-now the Department of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences-in the 1970s he became the first director
of what's now the UW's Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies.
He
has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was
identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently
cited climatologist in the world."

(He was one of the first scientists to tout the idea of anthrogenic
climate
change, and was widely chastised for it. He also spearheaded the hysteria
back in 1970 about the coming of the next ice age. He has since switched
his views on the subject.)

Here's what he now has to say:

So..... having ridiculed that genre of scientist, you now seek to cite
them as factually accurate? How incredibly bizarre!

Why ridicule a man whose career ended about 20 years ago?


Read my post again, Gene. I'm not ridiculing him. Instead, I'm praising
him for having the courage to admit that he was wrong back in the 60's and
70's.

And who do you suppose is going to fund scientists who dispute the concept
of global warming?

There is a lot more money to be made by companies like Dupont, GE, Alcoa,
etc. if the anthropogenic global warming hoax causes a reduction in the use
of fossil fuels....but you conveniently ignore that fact, and only point to
funding by the "oil interests".






You can be sure that we'll be screwed by corporate interests on all
sides of the argument. It's their business, after all.

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

You can be sure that we'll be screwed by corporate interests on all sides
of the argument. It's their business, after all.

Only if they're unionized.

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 May 2007 00:54:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



So..... having ridiculed that genre of scientist, you now seek to cite
them as factually accurate? How incredibly bizarre!

Why ridicule a man whose career ended about 20 years ago?


Read my post again, Gene. I'm not ridiculing him. Instead, I'm praising
him for having the courage to admit that he was wrong back in the 60's and
70's.

And who do you suppose is going to fund scientists who dispute the concept
of global warming?

There is a lot more money to be made by companies like Dupont, GE, Alcoa,
etc. if the anthropogenic global warming hoax causes a reduction in the
use
of fossil fuels....but you conveniently ignore that fact, and only point
to
funding by the "oil interests".

Oh, I get it, now!

There is some sort of Evil Global Warming Conspiracy

Actually, gene, there is. And it's economically driven.

The Kyoto protocol was designed as a form of World tariff imposed on the big
ol' bad USA. It's designed to level the playing field between the more and
less industrialized nations.

Now the one good thing that I see coming from the Global Warming hysteria is
the global move towards alternative energy so that we don't have to send
U.S. forces to the Middle East any more.

The frantic urgency that you see coming from the anthropogenic global
warming theorists right now is because they're trying to strike while the
iron (or Earth in this case) is hot. Back in 1970, the alarmists were using
data showing 25 years of global cooling trends in order to enact
environmental protection regulations to protect us from the coming ice age.
Sure, we benefitted from the reduction of pollutants...but the justification
for enacting the legislation was a lie.

Today, the alarmists are using 35 years of warming trend data to justify
stringent reductions in the use of fossil fuels. They tell us that they're
afraid that if we don't act within the next decade, there will be
irreversible harm done. But the real thing that they're afraid of is
another 5-10 years of data showing a possible inflection point in the
warming trend leading to a cooling period.

Just look at the data in the past 10 years. 1998 was the hottest on
record...followed by several years of cooler data...and then a one-year blip
in 2006 again. The third hottest year on record was 1934. 1999, 2000,
2002, 2003, and 2004 barely register in the top 20. The trend has reached
its peak, and I believe we are about to head into a cooling period. If that
occurs before GW reduction standards are adopted, they'll be a lot of
alarmists with egg on their face. If we adopt GW reduction standards, and
*then* the temperatures fall, the alarmists can claim credit. That's why
there's an urgency.

TONIGHT! CNN Headline News
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:32:16 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message

Oh, I get it, now!

There is some sort of Evil Global Warming Conspiracy

Actually, gene, there is. And it's economically driven.

The Kyoto protocol was designed as a form of World tariff imposed on the
big
ol' bad USA. It's designed to level the playing field between the more
and
less industrialized nations.


It isn't hard to figure out who is doing your thinking for you:

"An advisor to President Bush on climate issues today claimed global
warming is a myth designed to 'hamper American competitiveness.' Myron
Ebell, a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, today told
Radio 4 that claims the climate is threatened are 'ridiculous,
unrealistic and alarmist'........."

Even Exxon sees the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" as so far out
on the lunatic fringe that they have stopped funding them.


I've never heard of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but they're hardly
the only group that has stated that GW is designed to hamper American
competitiveness.





Now the one good thing that I see coming from the Global Warming hysteria
is
the global move towards alternative energy so that we don't have to send
U.S. forces to the Middle East any more.

Which should have been done when this was a crisis in the mid 70's....
and none of this Middle East foolishness would ever have happened.


Agreed. But we were at the end of a 25 year cooling period in the early to
mid-70's, and they couldn't blame the cooling on fossil fuels back then.




The frantic urgency that you see coming from the anthropogenic global
warming theorists right now is because they're trying to strike while the
iron (or Earth in this case) is hot. Back in 1970, the alarmists were
using
data showing 25 years of global cooling trends in order to enact
environmental protection regulations to protect us from the coming ice
age.
Sure, we benefitted from the reduction of pollutants...but the
justification
for enacting the legislation was a lie.

So... you are going to look at only 10 years of data and make the same
mistake? That's just crazy!

No. Look at the past 10 years and you'll see an inflection point in the
data...and then look at the next 10 years, and you'll see a small cooling
trend that mimics the cooling period from the late 1940's to the early
1970's.


Today, the alarmists are using 35 years of warming trend data to justify
stringent reductions in the use of fossil fuels. They tell us that
they're
afraid that if we don't act within the next decade, there will be
irreversible harm done.

The above paragraph is rendered nonsense because the premiss is false.
Where on earth did you get the 35 year date? Even a school boy should
be able to go to Wikipedia and find that the trend has been mapped for
over 150 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming


There's an indisputable warming trend from 1975 until today.

But there's also an indisputable cooling trend from the late 1940's to the
early 1970's.



The overall slope of the curve is upward...and Prof. Bryson acknowledges
that. So do I. But as he points out, that's because we have been coming
out of a mini ice age for all of that time.