"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.

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. :}

On May 4, 10:36 am, "Bo" wrote:
"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 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!

"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

"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

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.

"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".

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.

"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.