On Fri, 04 May 2007 06:38:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:15:30 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
If you want accurate information on global warming, there are far more
accurate sources than Glenn Beck, or Al Gore, for that matter.
Absolutely...like MIT Professor Richard Lindzen
Great source, Lindzen..... First, he doesn't believe in his own
theories enough to take James Annan's wager and second, he has taken
WAY too much money from the likes of Western Fuels and Exxon-Mobil for
me to think of him as a unbiased observer.

Just to give you another sample of how way-out-there this guy
is.....Fred Guterl reported in Newsweek(7/01), after an interview with
Lindzen, "[that] he'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is
linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical
paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful
drags on a cigarette." What did they teach *you* in medical school about
tobacco? Or are all
of those people creating a false climate of fear, too???

He's the MIT equivalent of that Oklahoma U.S. Senator who is in the back
pocket of the oil industry. One thing you can count upon from most
dedicated righties: their "experts" are the ones who support the
right-wing dogma.

Give me a break. GE, Alcoa, Entergy, and Dupont are only a few of dozens of
huge corporations who stand to profit immensely from legislation designed to
curtail greenhouse gas emmissions. They're actively lobbying members of
Congress to enact greenhouse gas-reducing legislation. The global warming
theorists certainly don't have a monopoly on the moral high ground.

Anthropogenic global warming is a theory perpetuated by alarmism and
political motivation. Guys like Lindzen are the Galileo's of our
time...persecuted by the Church of AlGoristic Histrionics.


When the average global temperatures show a cooling trend in the next 10-15
years, will Algore direct Inconvenient Truth Part Deux: The Next Ice Age?








Ooohhhhh....NOYB's been eating GOP graham crackers again.

Harry, you're such a neat guy! Rather than participate in a losing
proposition, you back out with a derogatory comment. How cool can you get?

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?

"thunder" wrote in message
news
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".

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:50:59 -0400,
wrote:

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.

Also, the other planets are experiencing their own global warming that
is coincident with the Earth's global warming. Two planets, Mars and
Earth, are warming at the same rate and only one of these planets is
inhabited by humans.

Not true. Mars may be warming at a rate 4 times that of Earth.
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Glo...s_Too_999.html

On the planet with the humans it is believed that
the warming is due, in a large part, to the humans.

The ONLY scientific society in the world that rejects that conclusion
is "The American Association of Petroleum Geologists." Why just them?

What is the cause of
the warming on the planet without humans?
Dirt.

It has to be a 'society'?

How about Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist who leads the
Washington-based Science and Environmental Policy Project. His comments are
interesting.

http://www.jbs.org/node/602

wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 15:24:39 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 14:21:03 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:15:30 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
If you want accurate information on global warming, there are far more
accurate sources than Glenn Beck, or Al Gore, for that matter.
Absolutely...like MIT Professor Richard Lindzen

Great source, Lindzen..... First, he doesn't believe in his own
theories enough to take James Annan's wager and second, he has taken
WAY too much money from the likes of Western Fuels and Exxon-Mobil for
me to think of him as a unbiased observer.

Just to give you another sample of how way-out-there this guy
is.....Fred Guterl reported in Newsweek(7/01), after an interview with
Lindzen, "[that] he'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is
linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical
paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful
drags on a cigarette."

What did they teach *you* in medical school about tobacco? Or are all
of those people creating a false climate of fear, too???
Gore's *not* in it for any money?

Of course he is. He is an extremist for pay....a writer. I don't
think anybody expects him to be otherwise.

The difference is that he isn't masquerading as a scientist.... which
is a person that *shouldn't* have an opinion for pay on topics
relating to his/her academic discipline. Lindzen is a nut-case that
people, as far off the opposite deep end as Gore, like to point to as
"proof" of their position.

Your link is just plain trash put forth by another nut-case and the
publisher of such other notable works as "Nuclear War Survival
Skills." The "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is just
another group of people striking a pose and populating the lunatic
fringe of science.

For every nut on our side we can identify a nut on your side. Dismissing
advocates of a position just because you don't believe them is not
conducive to discussion and debate.

wrote:
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.

How do we determine how much of an effect we humans are having?

Also, the other planets are experiencing their own global warming that
is coincident with the Earth's global warming. Two planets, Mars and
Earth, are warming at the same rate and only one of these planets is
inhabited by humans.

Not true. Mars may be warming at a rate 4 times that of Earth.
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Glo...s_Too_999.html

Mars is further from the Sun and warming at a greater rate than Earth. I
guess all of the CO2 is keeping the Earth from burning up?

On the planet with the humans it is believed that
the warming is due, in a large part, to the humans.

The ONLY scientific society in the world that rejects that conclusion
is "The American Association of Petroleum Geologists." Why just them?

Exactly which conclusion. Did they come to their conclusion by a
unanimous agreement or were there dissenters in those societies? Was at
50% plus 1 vote?

What is the cause of
the warming on the planet without humans?
Dirt.

Dirt? The fact that we have forests and water over top of the dirt means
that we are slowing down our fiery end?

"Bo" wrote in message news:tJG_h.1$Q96.0@trnddc04...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 May 2007 15:24:39 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 14:21:03 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:15:30 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
If you want accurate information on global warming, there are far
more
accurate sources than Glenn Beck, or Al Gore, for that matter.

Absolutely...like MIT Professor Richard Lindzen


Great source, Lindzen..... First, he doesn't believe in his own
theories enough to take James Annan's wager and second, he has taken
WAY too much money from the likes of Western Fuels and Exxon-Mobil for
me to think of him as a unbiased observer.

Just to give you another sample of how way-out-there this guy
is.....Fred Guterl reported in Newsweek(7/01), after an interview with
Lindzen, "[that] he'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is
linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical
paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful
drags on a cigarette."

What did they teach *you* in medical school about tobacco? Or are all
of those people creating a false climate of fear, too???

Gore's *not* in it for any money?

Of course he is. He is an extremist for pay....a writer. I don't
think anybody expects him to be otherwise.

The difference is that he isn't masquerading as a scientist.... which
is a person that *shouldn't* have an opinion for pay on topics
relating to his/her academic discipline. Lindzen is a nut-case that
people, as far off the opposite deep end as Gore, like to point to as
"proof" of their position.

Your link is just plain trash put forth by another nut-case and the
publisher of such other notable works as "Nuclear War Survival
Skills." The "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is just
another group of people striking a pose and populating the lunatic
fringe of science.
--


How about William Gray?

Or Max Mayfield. He was issued a citation recently for bringing a goliath
grouper aboard a boat for a picture. It was released unharmed, but they're
a protected species. Boating the fish was considered a "take". Of course,
in order to properly release the fish unharmed, the fish needs to be brought
aboard and vented. Every angler and fishing guide in my neck of the woods
always boats these fish in order to vent them. It's common practice...and
good conservation technique.

So why am I mentioning this here in a thread about Global Warming?

Because Max Mayfield stepped on some toes when he testified before Congress
that hurricanes were not a result of global warming. His picture appeared
with the goliath in a local paper out of St. Pete, and a former disgruntled
colleague of his at NOAA turned him in.

That's the kind of thing that the global warming zealots do to stifle
dissent.

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?

NOYB wrote:
"Bo" wrote in message news:tJG_h.1$Q96.0@trnddc04...
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 May 2007 15:24:39 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 14:21:03 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:15:30 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
If you want accurate information on global warming, there are far
more
accurate sources than Glenn Beck, or Al Gore, for that matter.
Absolutely...like MIT Professor Richard Lindzen

Great source, Lindzen..... First, he doesn't believe in his own
theories enough to take James Annan's wager and second, he has taken
WAY too much money from the likes of Western Fuels and Exxon-Mobil for
me to think of him as a unbiased observer.

Just to give you another sample of how way-out-there this guy
is.....Fred Guterl reported in Newsweek(7/01), after an interview with
Lindzen, "[that] he'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is
linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical
paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful
drags on a cigarette."

What did they teach *you* in medical school about tobacco? Or are all
of those people creating a false climate of fear, too???
Gore's *not* in it for any money?
Of course he is. He is an extremist for pay....a writer. I don't
think anybody expects him to be otherwise.

The difference is that he isn't masquerading as a scientist.... which
is a person that *shouldn't* have an opinion for pay on topics
relating to his/her academic discipline. Lindzen is a nut-case that
people, as far off the opposite deep end as Gore, like to point to as
"proof" of their position.

Your link is just plain trash put forth by another nut-case and the
publisher of such other notable works as "Nuclear War Survival
Skills." The "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is just
another group of people striking a pose and populating the lunatic
fringe of science.
--

How about William Gray?

Or Max Mayfield. He was issued a citation recently for bringing a goliath
grouper aboard a boat for a picture. It was released unharmed, but they're
a protected species. Boating the fish was considered a "take". Of course,
in order to properly release the fish unharmed, the fish needs to be brought
aboard and vented. Every angler and fishing guide in my neck of the woods
always boats these fish in order to vent them. It's common practice...and
good conservation technique.

So why am I mentioning this here in a thread about Global Warming?

Because Max Mayfield stepped on some toes when he testified before Congress
that hurricanes were not a result of global warming. His picture appeared
with the goliath in a local paper out of St. Pete, and a former disgruntled
colleague of his at NOAA turned him in.

That's the kind of thing that the global warming zealots do to stifle
dissent.





Kind of mild compared to what a bunch of Conservatrashers did to Max
Cleland or John McCain, eh?

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?