On Dec 20, 11:46 am, HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't
even warming at all" category.
Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants.

There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense.
Leave it to Wally... :}
Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html

Or this one.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...t&task=view&id...

Russians, what do they know about anything?

New Zealanders, all they know is sheep.

8-)

I know less than nothing about New Zealand, but I am very concerned
about what is going on in Russia with Tsar Putin. What he is doing there
is a lot more dangerous than the games the leader of Iran plays with the
substance-abused brain of George W. Bush.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

New Zealand, a land where men are men, and sheep are nervous

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:29:34 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:02?am, WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't
even warming at all" category.

Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants.

There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense.

There you go, JAFM. A good example of "there's no proof that earth is
even warming at all", and right here in the NG. I wouldn't be
surprised to find that almost 1/3 of Americans agree with that
sentiment.

I disagree, to the point where I believe the earth is in a warming
trend. I also believe that warming and cooling trends have long been a
part of the natural cycle. My concern is that we might warm too much
and too quickly; and *if* that's a possibility we should be concerned.
I don't subscribe to the "it's all man's fault" school of thinking,
but neither am I prepared at this point to say that we are unable to
screw up the climate just as we have screwed up much of the rest of
our environment.

Overall I agree with your assessment.

What is happening, though, is that the economic forces related to the
subject is going to hamstring Western economies to the point of deep
recession or even total depression.

The nubris exhibited by those who believe, despite historical and peer
reviewed evidence to the contrary, that mankind is totally responsible
is creating a whole disruption in the economy, stifling research into
alternative because the money that would normally be available by
grants, industrial research and even academic research is being
invested in making more money via commodity trading and whole new
economies trading carbon credits. The money supply needed to produce
new products and science is busy making money in monetary markets.

Which doesn't produce anything but money.

The rush to ethanol is creating a huge disruption in the food supply
chain. This morning I was down at the local farm taking some
picutures and conversed with the owner. He showed me his feed bill
for his milk cows and beef cattle - he's paying twice what he paid
last year and he can't hedge because his suppliers fully expect it to
double again before spring. He's seriously thinking of cutting back
on his herd because even though beef prices are rising, he can't
afford the same size herd because he can't feed them economically.

He can't even lock in seed corn prices for another three months -
right before planting season. Normally, he's locked in by now for
delivery in late March.

We're making a huge mistake with this whole rush to mitigate climate
change that we can't do anything about.

wrote in message ...
On Dec 20, 11:46 am, HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't
even warming at all" category.
Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants.

There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense.
Leave it to Wally... :}
Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html

Or this one.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...t&task=view&id...

Russians, what do they know about anything?

New Zealanders, all they know is sheep.

8-)

I know less than nothing about New Zealand, but I am very concerned
about what is going on in Russia with Tsar Putin. What he is doing there
is a lot more dangerous than the games the leader of Iran plays with the
substance-abused brain of George W. Bush.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

New Zealand, a land where men are men, and sheep are nervous

Oh no you di-int!
chuckle

db

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:37:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't
even warming at all" category.
Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants.

There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense.
Leave it to Wally... :}

Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html

Or this one.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...179&Item id=1



You're just proving my point. Thanks.

Typical non-response when facts are presented.
--
John H

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:46:26 -0500, HK wrote:

D.Duck wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:20:07 -0500, HK wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

I'm surprised you aren't seeing many folks in the "the earth isn't
even warming at all" category.
Duh, you see many folks, just not the ones that need government grants.

There's no proof of global warming, it doesn't even make sense.
Leave it to Wally... :}
Let's see you make a republican/democrat thing out of this one.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html

Or this one.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...179&Item id=1


Russians, what do they know about anything?

New Zealanders, all they know is sheep.

8-)




I know less than nothing about New Zealand, but I am very concerned
about what is going on in Russia with Tsar Putin. What he is doing there
is a lot more dangerous than the games the leader of Iran plays with the
substance-abused brain of George W. Bush.

He's just doing what Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton would like to do, Harry.
--
John H

On Dec 20, 8:25Â*am, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote:





"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the
human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out
a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are).

It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could
ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist
that the climate is *not* changing at all...........

You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as
fact by inference.

Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-)

The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as
scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor.

The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so
many people deny that the climate is changing at all.

Three concepts:

1. Some say man is causing climate change
2. Some say man is not causing climate change
3. Some say there is no climate change occuring

None of those are mutually exclusive.

For Chuck. Offedred without
comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not
mutually exclusive. Nice site, though.

No comprende. Parse it out for me please.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we
individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global
warming.

2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we
individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global
warming.

3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether
we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room
for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such
thing as global warming.

None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three
statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are
obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group
can simultaneously believe any of the three statements.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:13:27 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:25*am, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote:





"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Dec 20, 12:58?am, WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the
human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out
a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are).

It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could
ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist
that the climate is *not* changing at all...........

You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as
fact by inference.

Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-)

The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as
scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor.

The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so
many people deny that the climate is changing at all.

Three concepts:

1. Some say man is causing climate change
2. Some say man is not causing climate change
3. Some say there is no climate change occuring

None of those are mutually exclusive.

For Chuck. Offedred without
comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not
mutually exclusive. Nice site, though.

No comprende. Parse it out for me please.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we
individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global
warming.

2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we
individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global
warming.

3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether
we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room
for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such
thing as global warming.

None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three
statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are
obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group
can simultaneously believe any of the three statements.

I see that a person could be in groups 2 and 3. I don't see how a person
could be in 1 and 2, or 1 and 3.

If I believed there is no such thing as global warming, then I would not
believe that man is causing global warming.
--
John H

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:01:25 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:13:27 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:25*am, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote:





"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Dec 20, 12:58?am, WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the
human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out
a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are).

It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could
ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist
that the climate is *not* changing at all...........

You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as
fact by inference.

Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-)

The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as
scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor.

The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so
many people deny that the climate is changing at all.

Three concepts:

1. Some say man is causing climate change
2. Some say man is not causing climate change
3. Some say there is no climate change occuring

None of those are mutually exclusive.

For Chuck. Offedred without
comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not
mutually exclusive. Nice site, though.

No comprende. Parse it out for me please.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we
individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global
warming.

2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we
individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global
warming.

3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether
we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room
for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such
thing as global warming.

None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three
statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are
obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group
can simultaneously believe any of the three statements.

I see that a person could be in groups 2 and 3. I don't see how a person
could be in 1 and 2, or 1 and 3.

If I believed there is no such thing as global warming, then I would not
believe that man is causing global warming.

Phil Donohue got a train in Philly, heading for Pittsburgh at a steady
50 mph.
Brad Pitt got on a train in Pittsburgh heading to Philly at a steady
45 mph.
Both trains left at the same time.
Then why is Harrisburg the capital of PA?

--Vic

On Dec 20, 12:01�pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:13:27 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:25�am, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

....
On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote:

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

....
On Dec 20, 12:58?am, WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the
human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot out
a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are).

It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could
ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist
that the climate is *not* changing at all...........

You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as
fact by inference.

Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-)

The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as
scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor.

The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so
many people deny that the climate is changing at all.

Three concepts:

1. Some say man is causing climate change
2. Some say man is not causing climate change
3. Some say there is no climate change occuring

None of those are mutually exclusive.

For Chuck. Offedred without
comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not
mutually exclusive. Nice site, though.

No comprende. Parse it out for me please.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we
individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global
warming.

2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we
individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global
warming.

3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether
we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room
for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such
thing as global warming.

None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three
statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are
obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group
can simultaneously believe any of the three statements.

I see that a person could be in groups 2 and 3. I don't see how a person
could be in 1 and 2, or 1 and 3.

If I believed there is no such thing as global warming, then I would not
believe that man is causing global warming.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Back up a step.

I'm not saying that the statements are wrong or right, only that
people believe each of the three ideas. That may be where Wally got
off the track as well, with his original critcism.

1. Some people believe the earth is round.
2. Some people believe the earth is flat.

The earth cannot be both round and flat, but different people can
simultaneously hold conflicting opinions regarding the shape of the
earth.

The statements:

1. The earth is round.
2. The earth is flat

*would be* contradictory, but preface each with "some people
believe......"
and both can be true at the same time.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 8:25 am, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Dec 20, 8:02 am, "Jim" wrote:





"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Dec 20, 12:58�am, WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:08?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

There is evidence as well as scientific opinion on both sides of the
human-influence factor. Neither your side or the other should trot
out
a single study and say "see, that settles it." (Not that you are).

It's amazing the number of people who not only deny that many could
ever have any influence on his global environment, but also insist
that the climate is *not* changing at all...........

You just contradicted your first paragraph and impugn your opinion as
fact by inference.

Nonsense. You must be celebrating at full steam already. :-)

The first paragragh is a statement that there is evidence as well as
scientific opinion of both sides of the human-influence factor.

The last paragraph you referenced is an expression of surprise that so
many people deny that the climate is changing at all.

Three concepts:

1. Some say man is causing climate change
2. Some say man is not causing climate change
3. Some say there is no climate change occuring

None of those are mutually exclusive.

For Chuck. Offedred without
comment.http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/m...utual.htm-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The three concepts can exist simultaneously, and therefore are not
mutually exclusive. Nice site, though.

No comprende. Parse it out for me please.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Some people say "man is causing global warming". Whether we
individually agree the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is causing global
warming.

2. Some people say "Man is not causing global warming." Whether we
individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room for
debate that some people do, indeed, say that man is not causing global
warming.

3. Some people say "There is no such thing as global warming." Whether
we individually agree with the statement itself, there is little room
for debate that some people do, indeed, say that there is no such
thing as global warming.

None of my observations (that people subscribe to each of those three
statements) are mutually exclusive. The statements themselves are
obviously mutually exclusive, but different individuals within a group
can simultaneously believe any of the three statements.

It's hard to apply boolean (sp) logic to what you think you know about what
people believe. But it can certainly be applied to the existance of "global
warming". It either exists or it doesn't. Hence mutually exclusive.
You talk/write too much. ;-)
Merry Christmas