I Will Never Understand Wind

[Jay Honeck]

Today, for the first time in weeks, dawned clear, cool, and calm. After a
VERY early spring (with temps in the 80s for over a week), we have
experienced extremely high winds and record COLD temps. In fact, we broke
the record here on both Sunday and Monday... (Take THAT all you "global
warming" pessimists!)

When we got to the hangar, the air was as still as death. The wind sock
hung limp as a rag, and AWOS was reporting winds variable at nuthin'...
Flight service mentioned nothing about turbulence (for a change) -- so we
taxied out to Rwy 25 in anticipation of a smooth ride to Clinton, IA...

Initially after departure all was smooth -- but by 1500 feet we were getting
bounced pretty good. By 3000, we were inside a popcorn popper. Mary
climbed to 7500 feet before we penetrated the haze layer, and popped out
into the clear, smooth air on top. It was a VERY uncomfortable ride until
then -- and, of course, she had to descend back down through it to land.

On the return flight a couple of hours later, it was even worse. Now we
had heating of the day, with the sun on the dark, freshly plowed fields --
and the ride was wild, indeed. However, again it was smoother down LOW --
which was bizarre -- than it was in the middle altitudes.

I suppose after all the unsettled weather we've had the atmosphere is still
stirred up -- but no one standing on the ground would EVER have guessed what
was brewing and burbling just a few thousand feet overhead. By all
appearances, it was the perfect day to fly -- yet it was the most
uncomfortable flight we've had in a good long time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul kgyy]

I've had this happen around Chicago, and conclude that in many cases
it's wind shear. Lake Michigan often establishes a mini-high over the
lake, with wind flowing from the northeast over Chicago. The
prevailing upper winds are some sort of westerly, and there's often a
layer around 2500 ft where the 2 layers mix which can be surprisingly
rough - smooth above, not too bad below.

[John Galban]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I suppose after all the unsettled weather we've had the atmosphere is
still
> stirred up -- but no one standing on the ground would EVER have
guessed what
> was brewing and burbling just a few thousand feet overhead. By all

> appearances, it was the perfect day to fly -- yet it was the most
> uncomfortable flight we've had in a good long time.

A clearly defined haze layer can often signal the boundary between
two airmasses. Turbulence is often (but not always) a possibility in
this shear zone. Did you happen to check winds aloft and PIREPS?
Usually, when it's dead calm on the ground and windy upstairs, you know
you're going to be in for a bumpy ride.

One of the bumpiest approaches I ever made was through one of these
shear zones. Ground wind was reported by the tower to be 10 kts from
the east. On a 2 mile final, my GPS was telling me I had 40 kts from
the north at 1,500 ft. AGL. That last 1,500 ft. was a hell of a wild
ride, but when I touched down, the wind was blowing lightly from the
east. Just as advertised.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> experienced extremely high winds and record COLD temps. In fact, we broke
....
> Initially after departure all was smooth -- but by 1500 feet we were getting
> bounced pretty good. By 3000, we were inside a popcorn popper. Mary

A cold air mass and a strong heating sun gives you the best thermals.
That's why spring is the best season for soaring. Go to your nearest
glider school and buy a cross country flight or two, and you'll
understand this a lot better. Danger is, though, that you'll get hooked
and sell your engine.

Stefan

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:sZaee.56223$c24.36319@attbi_s72...
> [...]
> I suppose after all the unsettled weather we've had the atmosphere is
> still stirred up -- but no one standing on the ground would EVER have
> guessed what was brewing and burbling just a few thousand feet overhead.

"No one"? That's obviously false.

In fact, the conditions you describe sound like there was a reasonably
decent temperature inversion, creating nice, calm stable air near the
ground. Of course, any movement of the air above that inversion is going to
create shear and the turbulence that goes along with that.

When you got your weather forecast, did you look at the winds aloft
forecast? Did you compare the temperatures on the surface with those at the
various altitudes in the winds aloft forecast? What were the wind speed,
direction, and temperatures in the winds aloft forecast?

Did you look at the pressure charts? Both for the surface as well as for
higher altitudes (850mb for example)? What sort of pressure gradient
existed? This can give you additional information to elaborate on the winds
aloft forecast, or even to correct errors in it (depending on how recent the
winds aloft forecast is versus the pressure charts).

It may well be true that you will never understand wind, and it's certainly
true that understanding wind is a non-trivial exercise. But to claim that
no one could have predicted the conditions you experience, well...that seems
just a bit silly to me.

As far as the lack of a specific mention of turbulence in the weather
briefing, remember that an airmet for turbulence is given only for moderate
or above. Pilots (and especially passengers) of light aircraft consistently
overestimate the intensity of turbulence, and it's entirely possible that
the turbulence you experienced was not great enough to justify an airmet.

Pete

[Mike Rapoport]

The wind can do strange things. I have an airdata computer that gives a
constant display on winds aloft. Once I was flying into 130kt heawind out
of the East at FL290 with moderate turbulence. I asked for and recieved a
descent to FL250 and the wind was 35kts out of the West. I would have
thought it impossible. I have seen similiar shifts a few times but never
165kts of shear over 4,000'

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:sZaee.56223$c24.36319@attbi_s72...
> Today, for the first time in weeks, dawned clear, cool, and calm. After
> a VERY early spring (with temps in the 80s for over a week), we have
> experienced extremely high winds and record COLD temps. In fact, we broke
> the record here on both Sunday and Monday... (Take THAT all you "global
> warming" pessimists!)
>
> When we got to the hangar, the air was as still as death. The wind sock
> hung limp as a rag, and AWOS was reporting winds variable at nuthin'...
> Flight service mentioned nothing about turbulence (for a change) -- so we
> taxied out to Rwy 25 in anticipation of a smooth ride to Clinton, IA...
>
> Initially after departure all was smooth -- but by 1500 feet we were
> getting bounced pretty good. By 3000, we were inside a popcorn popper.
> Mary climbed to 7500 feet before we penetrated the haze layer, and popped
> out into the clear, smooth air on top. It was a VERY uncomfortable ride
> until then -- and, of course, she had to descend back down through it to
> land.
>
> On the return flight a couple of hours later, it was even worse. Now we
> had heating of the day, with the sun on the dark, freshly plowed fields --
> and the ride was wild, indeed. However, again it was smoother down LOW --
> which was bizarre -- than it was in the middle altitudes.
>
> I suppose after all the unsettled weather we've had the atmosphere is
> still stirred up -- but no one standing on the ground would EVER have
> guessed what was brewing and burbling just a few thousand feet overhead.
> By all appearances, it was the perfect day to fly -- yet it was the most
> uncomfortable flight we've had in a good long time.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[tony roberts]

> Once I was flying into 130kt heawind out
> of the East at FL290 with moderate turbulence.

If I was flying into 130 kt headwind I'd reach my departure point before
I reached my arrival point :)

Tony

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[john smith]

WOW!
Don't you guys even use the Winds page on the ADDS?
Pick a day and time and step up and down the altitudes.
It will tell you everything you want to know.
Do the same thing with the temperatures at different altitudes.
It's even color coded. Use the streamline display option.

[Peter R.]

tony roberts > wrote:

> If I was flying into 130 kt headwind I'd reach my departure point before
> I reached my arrival point :)

Haha! :)

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jay Honeck]

> WOW!
> Don't you guys even use the Winds page on the ADDS?
> Pick a day and time and step up and down the altitudes.
> It will tell you everything you want to know.
> Do the same thing with the temperatures at different altitudes.
> It's even color coded. Use the streamline display option.

I do occasionally, but today was so picture-perfect (from the ground) that
it never even dawned on me to look.

As I mentioned to Mary, while we were getting tossed around: It's a good
thing we can't see wind and turbulence (the way we can see rapids in a
river) -- because if we could, humans would never have attempted flight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

Yeah, I hate that when it looks perfect, so you take off and get your
teeth handed to you... Someday I'm gonna have to learn how to use all
the meterology gadget stuff... otoh, if I KNEW there was wind shear I
would stay on the ground, at least this way I get to go flying...

denny

[OtisWinslow]

Jay ..

I generally look at the 3 - 6,000 ft level for wind that is moving
considerably
faster than that down low. I find the boundry area between them to be
generally turbulent when that situation exists. So even on an absolutely
gorgeous
and still day down low you can get a bumpy ride up through that layer.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:sZaee.56223$c24.36319@attbi_s72...
> Today, for the first time in weeks, dawned clear, cool, and calm. After
> a VERY early spring (with temps in the 80s for over a week), we have
> experienced extremely high winds and record COLD temps. In fact, we broke
> the record here on both Sunday and Monday... (Take THAT all you "global
> warming" pessimists!)
>
> When we got to the hangar, the air was as still as death. The wind sock
> hung limp as a rag, and AWOS was reporting winds variable at nuthin'...
> Flight service mentioned nothing about turbulence (for a change) -- so we
> taxied out to Rwy 25 in anticipation of a smooth ride to Clinton, IA...
>
> Initially after departure all was smooth -- but by 1500 feet we were
> getting bounced pretty good. By 3000, we were inside a popcorn popper.
> Mary climbed to 7500 feet before we penetrated the haze layer, and popped
> out into the clear, smooth air on top. It was a VERY uncomfortable ride
> until then -- and, of course, she had to descend back down through it to
> land.
>
> On the return flight a couple of hours later, it was even worse. Now we
> had heating of the day, with the sun on the dark, freshly plowed fields --
> and the ride was wild, indeed. However, again it was smoother down LOW --
> which was bizarre -- than it was in the middle altitudes.
>
> I suppose after all the unsettled weather we've had the atmosphere is
> still stirred up -- but no one standing on the ground would EVER have
> guessed what was brewing and burbling just a few thousand feet overhead.
> By all appearances, it was the perfect day to fly -- yet it was the most
> uncomfortable flight we've had in a good long time.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[OtisWinslow]

ADDS is the first place I start. And the wind page is my first
page to get a sense of what's moving where. I agree totally
with john smith.



"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> WOW!
> Don't you guys even use the Winds page on the ADDS?
> Pick a day and time and step up and down the altitudes.
> It will tell you everything you want to know.
> Do the same thing with the temperatures at different altitudes.
> It's even color coded. Use the streamline display option.

[Jay Honeck]

>> (Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)
>
> Why do you insist on doing this Jay?
>
> Are you really that proud of your ignorance?

Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

>>> (Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)
>>
>> Why do you insist on doing this Jay?
>>
>> Are you really that proud of your ignorance?
>
> Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...
>
> :-)

So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
scientists are wrong, then?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Matt Barrow]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> >>> (Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)
> >>
> >> Why do you insist on doing this Jay?
> >>
> >> Are you really that proud of your ignorance?
> >
> > Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...
> >
> > :-)
>
> So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
> scientists are wrong, then?

What climate scientists (be sure of your references before responding, they
might not be all you believe)?

[Matt Barrow]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> >>> (Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)
> >>
> >> Why do you insist on doing this Jay?
> >>
> >> Are you really that proud of your ignorance?
> >
> > Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...
> >
> > :-)
>
> So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
> scientists are wrong, then?

What climate scientists (be sure of your references before responding, they
might not be all you believe)?

[Denny]

We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
since the industrial revolution...

Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?

cheers ... denny

[John Galban]

Denny wrote:
> Which company or
> government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?
>

Dinosaur farts?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[R.L.]

> So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the >
(anti-industry, ant-growth, anti-social, socialist) climate>(pseudo)
scientists are wrong, then?


Sounds like a pretty accurate statement to me.

[RomeoMike]

The last two issues of New Yorker Magazine contain a series on global
warming that might broaden your understanding of the issue. You're not
seeing the forest for the trees.


Denny wrote:
> We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
> "warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
> industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
> 30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
> warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
> sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
> modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
> of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
> invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
> ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
> global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
> since the industrial revolution...
>
> Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
> moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
> the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
> span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
> government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?
>
> cheers ... denny
>

[Mike Rapoport]

The chemistry is pretty straightforward (I'm told) and it is a near
certaintly that humans are contributing to global warming through greenhouse
gasses as well as deforesting. The real issue, as you point out, is that we
don't know what would be happening if humans were not contributing. We
could be a small part of the problem or a large one, there is no way to
know. Climate data is so chaotic that it is difficult to filter the signal
from the noise.

Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with fossil
fuels besides global warming.

Mike
MU-2


"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
> "warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
> industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
> 30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
> warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
> sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
> modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
> of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
> invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
> ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
> global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
> since the industrial revolution...
>
> Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
> moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
> the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
> span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
> government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?
>
> cheers ... denny
>

[Jose]

> We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
> "warming" continues apace and on schedule...

Uh... I don't know about that. How much of a temperature rise was there
in the last fifty years? How much of a temperature rise was there in
the last twenty thousand years?

Are they on the same straight line?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> Uh... I don't know about that. How much of a temperature rise was there
> in the last fifty years?

Actually, we haven't had a measurable rise on a global scale in 100 years. We've
had some strong local swings, however. New York has gone up over 5 degrees
average. Vienna has gone down. Over the last 20 years, ice has thickened
everywhere in Antarctica *except* the Ross ice shelf, where it's thinning (guess
what part gets the air play).

The weirdest guy I've heard is the clown who argues that the Greenland ice cap
will melt over the course of the next 1,000 years. The thing is, most of the
media people run that as a straight story -- only they leave off the "next 1,000
years" part and follow it up with a crack about "better sell your beachfront
property". NPR at least ran it straight.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Jay Honeck]

> So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
> scientists are wrong, then?

Bullsquat.

Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell me
what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
their dire warnings about the next 400 years.

Until then, they rank right up there amongst the many other snake oil and
Chicken Little charlatans of the world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:24:35 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>> (Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)
>>
>> Why do you insist on doing this Jay?
>>
>> Are you really that proud of your ignorance?
>
>Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...
>
>:-)

We're all going to freeze in hell.

Mike Weller

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:57:31 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:


>
>Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with fossil
>fuels besides global warming.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>

Yes. Running the lawn mowers around a nuclear plant to charge
electrical cars. Someone will complain about that.

Mike Weller
>"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
>> "warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
>> industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
>> 30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
>> warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
>> sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
>> modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
>> of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
>> invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
>> ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
>> global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
>> since the industrial revolution...
>>
>> Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
>> moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
>> the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
>> span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
>> government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?
>>
>> cheers ... denny
>>
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article <daBee.50320$r53.11838@attbi_s21>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell me
> what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
> their dire warnings about the next 400 years.

There is a HUGE difference between climatology and meteorology. If you
don't understand the difference between a climatologist and a
meteorologist it's no wonder you have the misconceptions you do about
climate change.

A climatologist is NOT a meterologist. They don't try and predict the
weather tomorrow or this weekend; that's up to the meteorologist. Think
of it this way: a climatologist might be able to tell you that
generally, the weather in the north Irish Sea for the last 300 years has
followed a certain pattern (mild, wet winters seldom going much below
freezing, mild, wet summers seldom going above 20 degrees Celcius). A
meteorologist will tell you 'there is a 30% chance of isolated
thunderstorms this afternoon'. Although the two fields are related, they
are VERY different.

As a metaphor for this, imagine a large pan of water on a gas stove and
turn the gas on full. You can predict quite accurately that the water
will boil, and when it will boil. However, predicting where individual
bubbles of boiling water, or a specific convection in the pan of boiling
water is a completely different science. The meteorologist is predicting
the bubbles and convection, where it will occur and what effect it will
have on a specific square millimetre of the pan's surface, the
climatologist is saying some time in the future the water in the pan as
a whole will boil, based on calculating the energy going in, the energy
being lost, the specific heat capacity of water etc.

Equally, it is proven scientific fact that if you increase the
concentration of carbon dioxide, more solar radiation is trapped. The
concentration of carbon dioxide has provably increased in the last 50
years. The concentration of chloroflourocarbons ahs provably increased
in the last 50 years. The concentration of methane has provably
increased. Given the proven fact that CO2, CFCs and CH4 reduce the
escape of infrared radiation from the planet, and that the sun's output
has not decreased, just as 1+1=2, the planet's energy balance (heat in
versus heat out) has also changed towards keeping more heat in. It
doesn't even take a degree in climatology to prove that this is true.

Just as it's difficult to predict where the bubbles appear in a pot of
water being brought to the boil, it's difficult to predict what effect
it will have on the day to day meteorology of a given location on the
Earth's surface. But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
variables).

Those that deny otherwise are simply in denial about the laws of
physics.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jay Honeck]

> But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
> power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
> say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
> undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
> variables).

Therein lies the rub, eh?

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science" of
"global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.

Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
least here in the U.S.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with
fossil
fuels besides global warming.


Mike
MU-2

************************************************** ******************************

YES, absolutely - the more efficient we are with conserving fossil
fuels the MORE fuel we have left to put through an airplane engine...
Now I see the light <oh rapture>

Now, having been facetious, I'll get serious... Your points are valid,
we simply don't know what the contribution of CO2 by our activities is
doing to the rate of warming... As you point out, it is a tiny signal
buried in a very noisy bandwidth... And I have little, to no, patience
with the hyper emotional who substitute endorphin stimulation for
critical thought... They have to be aware that one good volcano fart
equals total human production of CO2, CO, sulphur, etc., for a
considerable time period...

BTW, the image of a volcano fart came from John Galban's post... kudos,
John, you had me chuckling with that one....

I will correct one item I rattled off <on the spur of the moment> and
that is CFC's... The data is there to support the theory that CFC
emanations do injure the ozone layers, and therefore reduction of CFC's
being loosed into the atmosphere is necessary...

denny

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
> of 400 years of man-made air pollution)

Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas
other sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10
billion tons/year.

> Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
> least here in the U.S.

Certainly. The oil industry has a huge interest in this and is spending
millions if not billions into publicity. Successfully, as it seems.

Stefan

[Dylan Smith]

In article <I1Jee.50866$r53.20170@attbi_s21>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
>> power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
>> say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
>> undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
>> variables).
>
> Therein lies the rub, eh?
>
> It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
> of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science" of
> "global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.

How I wish that was true - unfortunately, it's an old wives' tale that
volcanos outproduce human CO2 emissions. Man made CO2 emissions
overwhelm those made by volcanoes by a factor of *150*.

There would have to be volcano eruptions *every year* equalling the
eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, one of the largest eruptions in the last 100
years, to compete with our emissions. Pinatubo was hardly a 'volcano
fart'.

> Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
> least here in the U.S.

I will agree with you that the political motives in the debate are
frustrating and often distasteful.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm not apoplectic Jay, just amazed. I'm amazed that seemingly >
> intelligent people like you and many others in this forum can be so
> misled, bamboozled, hoodwinked, led astray and run amok that you support
> causes, agendas, and world views that do not serve your own best
> interests.
>
> It just boggles my mind.

Well, then, Tom, we *do* agree on something.

I was thinking the very same thing about YOU.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the
>> equivalent of 400 years of man-made air pollution)
>
> Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas other
> sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
> tons/year.

Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in
front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring in
major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
of emissions.

Which is actually beside the point. Are emissions bad, regardless of
source? Sure. Are they worth laying awake at night, worrying?

Only if you live a very sheltered life.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[W P Dixon]

Interesting dilemma!
Some say nothing is happening to the earth, some say the earth is doomed
if we keep it up. Myself I do see a ton of political rhetoric on both sides
and nothing else. But one thing I have noticed the "sky is falling" group
gets in there cars and drive all over the place polluting the air and using
valuable resources, then they get in their airplanes and do the same thing.
And of course lets cut down an entire forest every year so we can make paper
to print up flyers and junk mail saying "the earth is being destroyed".
After we take care of all our biz we can go back to our homes which use
energy, and let's not forget all the energy for the products in the home.
Let's not forget the poisons we spray to keep little ants and things
from invading our homes and our crops. Everything we use that is produced by
man makes pollution in one form or another. And we all could be alittle
kinder to dear mother earth, she is the only one we have. But let's not be
hypocrites about it. To say "the sky is falling" while you still drive your
car , plane , even use toilet paper to wipe your butt with ( think how many
trees are cut down for that every year! WOW! And that's just for my
bathroom! ;) ) is not really sincere in your beliefs.
I think people on the opposite end of the "sky is falling" spectrum
would listen to someone alittle more if that person did not use all these
man made things, lived in a simple cabin in the woods with no electricity
etc., and wiped his butt with a fallen leaf or some such. As the old saying
goes," Practice what you preach."

IMHO,
Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Dylan Smith]

In article <pqKee.51025$r53.9421@attbi_s21>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas other
>> sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
>> tons/year.
>
> Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in
> front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring in
> major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
> of emissions.

'I'm feeling lucky' on Google brings the following reference.

From the University of North Dakota:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

> Which is actually beside the point. Are emissions bad, regardless of
> source? Sure. Are they worth laying awake at night, worrying?
> Only if you live a very sheltered life.

As for laying awake worrying, that does no one any good - you need a
good night's sleep to think straight enough to develop fixes. Besides,
no one where I live has a sheltered life, this island is a forbidding
windswept place in the winter! [0]

In any case, it's a problem that cannot be ignored. It's not just that
burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's:

* fossil fuels are not infinite, and indeed although there may be enough
to outlast everyone alive today, the *cheap* oil is rather more
limited. Our current lifestyles don't just depend on oil, they depend
on oil that is very cheap.
* we are having to depend on hostile nations for energy supply
* the damage will not be reversable, at least not in our lifetimes.

so it's prudent to try and find ways to conserve the fossil fuels we
have and try and figure out how to make better use of sustainable fuels
to ensure that our way of life has a future in the long term. In the
short term, this is probably going to require a serious re-evaluation of
nuclear energy, and in the long term, replacements for oil. (One of the
things that a shortage of cheap oil would bring is the market forces to
increase research into viable alternatives, at the moment oil is still too
cheap for the market to deem it worthwhile).

If we just bury our heads and carry on regardless, ignoring not just the
possibility of man-caused climate change, but all the other things
listed above, sooner or later it WILL turn around and bite us. It's
nothing to do with being a 'tree hugging commie', it's to do with
ensuring that our values of freedom, apple pie and light aircraft
can still be enjoyed in 200 years time.

[0] yes, I'm just being flippant, but if man-made climate change
increases the frequency of the winter storms, it's going to suck. It's
not unusual to have at least one hurricane force storm in the winter
here, and I don't relish the thought of more. Those nights you DO lie
awake worrying, it's difficult to sleep when a house made with three
foot thick stone walls is groaning and vibrating, and you can hear your
neighbour's roof slates bouncing off your roof)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> > We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
> > "warming" continues apace and on schedule...
>
> Uh... I don't know about that. How much of a temperature rise was there
> in the last fifty years? How much of a temperature rise was there in
> the last twenty thousand years?
>
> Are they on the same straight line?
The long term cycle of temperatures peaked in 1940.

When you use world wide reading and wash out the heat island effects, temps
have actually declined a bit in recent years.

A while back there was hysteria about glaciers in Yellowstone Park that had
now all but disappeared compared to pictures taken in the 1880's. They said
global warming, of course. The hysteria died out, though, when other
pictures showed they had all but disappeared by 1910.

If it wasn't for global warming, we'd still be in the Ice Age.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <daBee.50320$r53.11838@attbi_s21>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell
me
> > what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
> > their dire warnings about the next 400 years.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between climatology and meteorology. If you
> don't understand the difference between a climatologist and a
> meteorologist it's no wonder you have the misconceptions you do about
> climate change.
>
> A climatologist is NOT a meterologist. They don't try and predict the
> weather tomorrow or this weekend; that's up to the meteorologist.

True.

Now, when they had a petition of CLIMATOLOGISTS, (The Heidelberg something
or other) over 100 signed on saying global warming was doubtful at best and
bogus at worst.

I assume based on your profession that you know how models work. When
they've checked the models the hysterical set use they found the assumptions
were, well...pretty asinine. Of course the media (hysteria sells) and
government bureaucrats (Job Program beneficiaries) love telling only the
part that pumps their power lust.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:pqKee.51025$r53.9421@attbi_s21...
> >> It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the
> >> equivalent of 400 years of man-made air pollution)
> >
> > Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas
other
> > sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
> > tons/year.
>
> Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in
> front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring
in
> major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
> of emissions.
>
> Which is actually beside the point. Are emissions bad, regardless of
> source? Sure. Are they worth laying awake at night, worrying?
>
> Only if you live a very sheltered life.

And, is global warming really a bad thing? 2/3rd of the earth is largely
uninhabitable due to COLD.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <pqKee.51025$r53.9421@attbi_s21>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas
other
> >> sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
> >> tons/year.
> >
> > Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures
in
> > front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring
in
> > major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible
amount
> > of emissions.
>
> 'I'm feeling lucky' on Google brings the following reference.
>
> From the University of North Dakota:
> http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
>
"Most of the gases emitted by the ocean return to the oceans."

No support given for this assertion. It's also possibly bogus.

I notice they also used averages from just a couple volcano's including a
couple that a relatively "clean".

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <daBee.50320$r53.11838@attbi_s21>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell
me
> > what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
> > their dire warnings about the next 400 years.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between climatology and meteorology. If you
> don't understand the difference between a climatologist and a
> meteorologist it's no wonder you have the misconceptions you do about
> climate change.
>
> A climatologist is NOT a meterologist.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (Sponsored by Oregon Inst. of Science &
Medicine)

Scientists On Global Warming Petition
Over 17,000 scientists had signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption
of the Earth's climate."

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

>> But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
>> power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
>> say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
>> undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
>> variables).
>
> Therein lies the rub, eh?
>
> It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
> of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science" of
> "global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.
>
> Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
> least here in the U.S.

Whereas I see it's *denial* as being driven by transparent motives.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[R.L.]

Peace, love, dope, -- incense, hashpipes and hare krishna! Oh, AND
Earthshoes, too.




"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
news:2005050613080975249%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju nkatmacdotcom@junkjunk...
> On 2005-05-06 09:33:35 -0400, "Jay Honeck" >
said:
>
> >> I'm not apoplectic Jay, just amazed. I'm amazed that seemingly >
> >> intelligent people like you and many others in this forum can be so
> >> misled, bamboozled, hoodwinked, led astray and run amok that you
> >> support causes, agendas, and world views that do not serve your own
> >> best interests.
> >>
> >> It just boggles my mind.
> >
> > Well, then, Tom, we *do* agree on something.
> >
> > I was thinking the very same thing about YOU.
> >
> > ;-)
>
> Somehow I knew you were going to say that.
>
> The difference is, my position supports my own best interests, like
> seeing my great-grand-children have a planet they can inhabit. My main
> worry these day is wondering if we as a species will survive long
> enough for me to see my great-grand-children.
>
> I'll give up now. You've obviously been hopelessly convinced by the
> fascist, corporatist, propaganda you're being fed by the flat earth
> society media whores.
>

[Frank]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Today, for the first time in weeks, dawned clear, cool, and calm. After
> a VERY early spring (with temps in the 80s for over a week), we have
> experienced extremely high winds and record COLD temps.

<snip>

I poked a hole in the sky for about an hour on Wednesday evening. Took off
on 28 with information Hotel, on return they were using 10 and information
was Juliet.

--
Frank....H

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Over 17,000 scientists had signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no
> convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
> methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
> future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
> disruption
> of the Earth's climate."

That's quite a different statement than "there's no such thing as global
warming".

[Peter Duniho]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I think people on the opposite end of the "sky is falling" spectrum
> would listen to someone alittle more if that person did not use all these
> man made things, lived in a simple cabin in the woods with no electricity
> etc., and wiped his butt with a fallen leaf or some such. As the old
> saying goes," Practice what you preach."

So the only legitimate conservation is to not consume at all?

Bull.

[John Galban]

Dylan Smith wrote:
<snip>
> In any case, it's a problem that cannot be ignored. It's not just
that
> burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's:
>
> * fossil fuels are not infinite, and indeed although there may be
enough
> to outlast everyone alive today, the *cheap* oil is rather more
> limited. Our current lifestyles don't just depend on oil, they
depend
> on oil that is very cheap.
> * we are having to depend on hostile nations for energy supply
> * the damage will not be reversable, at least not in our lifetimes.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first two points. The economic and
political ramifications of relying on cheap oil are not good for
anyone. Of course, the way most economies work, alternatives will not
be exploited until the oil becomes more expensive than the alternative.
I can easily see a day when oil at $500/bbl will result in everyone
flying high-tech solar powered airplanes (*note aviation content!*) and
heating their homes with solar supplied hydrogen. When oil is no
longer economically feasable, something cheaper will take its place.

As for the last point, I'm convinced that the outcry over "global
warming" is just another round of a familiar hysteria. There is ample
anecdotal evidence on both sides of the issue, as seen in this thread
and all over the Internet. The planetary climate is so complex that I
have serious doubts about anyone who says that they underdstand how it
works, what it will do in the future, and why. The earth has been
through warming and cooling cycles for most of its existance, with the
last mini-ice age ending in the mid 1800s, prior to the industrial
revolution.

I'm old enough to remember that in the 70s, "climatologists" were
certain that the earth was fast falling into another Ice Age. In the
U.S. the hysteria was such that they even held highly publicized
Congressional hearings on the topic. The result? Recommendations that
billions should be spent to research the problem and save us from an
icey doom. This latest round is sounding all too familiar.

For the record, I don't know if man-made greenhouse gases are
seriously impacting global climates. From what I've read on the
subject, I'm not convinced that anyone else does either (with the
certainty that they claim).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[W P Dixon]

Ahh My dear Peter,
Even in those primitive circumstances you would in fact be consuming. Just
not to the extent of how modern folks do it. You would have to hunt for
food, cut trees to build your cabin, heat and cook.
It's not bull, but the refusal to see the outright stupidity of someone
complaining about "global warming" while not doing anything to correct it ,
especially by flying airplanes around, is in deed bull.
Just like most problems some must be on the far right or the far left of
an issue, when the answer is usually in the middle somewhere. That was the
point of the post. I prefer the middle myself. I hunt , fish, garden , kayak
down whitewater, and really just enjoy the outdoors. Not to mention flying.
But modern man has to weigh the options. We need oil and other resources,
but we also need this planet. Need that happy middle ground, but we don't
need people who say they are so concerned for this issue while they
themselves are part of the problem.
Living is one thing, our hobbies that pollute is another , wouldn't you
agree? So to preach "global warming" while driving to the airport, to get in
a plane and fly for a few hours, to go home and sit and say somebody needs
to do something about our planet....it's like DUHHHHHHH!

Patrick
student SPL
aicraft structural mech

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> So the only legitimate conservation is to not consume at all?
>
> Bull.
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
>> 'I'm feeling lucky' on Google brings the following reference.
>>
>> From the University of North Dakota:
>> http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
>>
> "Most of the gases emitted by the ocean return to the oceans."
>
> No support given for this assertion. It's also possibly bogus.
>
> I notice they also used averages from just a couple volcano's including a
> couple that a relatively "clean".

We aren't talking about, say, a 30% difference here - we are talking
about man made sources being *150* times greater. Even if their
estimates were off by an order of magnitude, man made emissions would
still be 15 times greater.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Peter Duniho]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Even in those primitive circumstances you would in fact be consuming. Just
> not to the extent of how modern folks do it. You would have to hunt for
> food, cut trees to build your cabin, heat and cook.

Burning wood for energy is one of the worst forms of pollution, by the way.
But in any case, even if the lifestyle you suggest were the best way to
conserve, your claim is apparently that no one can claim to be a
conservationist unless they live that lifestyle. That's bull.

> It's not bull, but the refusal to see the outright stupidity of someone
> complaining about "global warming" while not doing anything to correct it
> , especially by flying airplanes around, is in deed bull.

Who says they are not doing anything to correct it?

By your own admission, one can "conserve" without halting all consumption at
all. One can even use resources recreationally, without using them
wastefully. To characterize environmentalists as being different from
wasteful consumers only in their speech, and not in their actions, is to be
completely ignorant of the ways one can conserve while still engaging in an
active, fruitful, and entertained life.

> Just like most problems some must be on the far right or the far left
> of an issue, when the answer is usually in the middle somewhere.

That's true. So why do you assert that one has to take their lifestyle to
the extreme primitive in order to be a conservationist? Why do you assert
that it's hypocritical to do anything other than engage in the extreme
primitive lifestyle and at the same time talk of conservation?

> That was the point of the post.

Really? You wrote:

" To say "the sky is falling" while you still drive your
car , plane , even use toilet paper to wipe your butt with ( think how many
trees are cut down for that every year! WOW! And that's just for my
bathroom! ;) ) is not really sincere in your beliefs."

That is, you claim that someone arguing for conservation is insincere if
they use toilet paper. Again, that's just bull. And it's not at all the
point you claim to have been trying to make.

> [...]
> Living is one thing, our hobbies that pollute is another , wouldn't you
> agree? So to preach "global warming" while driving to the airport, to get
> in a plane and fly for a few hours, to go home and sit and say somebody
> needs to do something about our planet....it's like DUHHHHHHH!

So far, it's been your writing on the topic that's "like DUHHHHHHH!" We
could shut down ALL recreational flying and not make a noticeable dent in
our consumption of fossil fuels. To claim that a recreational pilot is
hypocritical for arguing for conservation, even though they fly
recreationally, that's bull.

Pete

[Mike Rapoport]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
>>> But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
>>> power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
>>> say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
>>> undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
>>> variables).
>>
>> Therein lies the rub, eh?
>>
>> It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the
>> equivalent
>> of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science" of
>> "global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.
>>
>> Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives --
>> at
>> least here in the U.S.
>
> Whereas I see it's *denial* as being driven by transparent motives.

Exactly.

Mike
MU-2

[George Patterson]

Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
> I'll give up now. You've obviously been hopelessly convinced by the
> fascist, corporatist, propaganda you're being fed by the flat earth
> society media whores.

As opposed to the people you listen to who owe their entire livelihood to the
ability to convince others that global warming is a problem and we had better
support their research into it or their organization who is working to "fix" it.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Grumman-581]

"W P Dixon" wrote in message ...
> Interesting dilemma!
> Some say nothing is happening to the earth, some say the earth is doomed
> if we keep it up.

And the earth is doomed if we don't keep it up... The sun will not last
forever --only another 5 billion years or so... Since I don't have anything
all that pressing that I need to do in the meantime that would cause me to
be elsewhere, that kind of concerns me... <grin>

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jay Honeck" > writes:
> >
> >>> But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
> >>> power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy
to
> >>> say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
> >>> undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
> >>> variables).
> >>
> >> Therein lies the rub, eh?
> >>
> >> It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the
> >> equivalent
> >> of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science"
of
> >> "global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.
> >>
> >> Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political
motives --
> >> at
> >> least here in the U.S.

Like the EPA?

> >
> > Whereas I see it's *denial* as being driven by transparent motives.
>
> Exactly.

Also?

[Matt Barrow]

"R.L." > wrote in message
m...
> Peace, love, dope, -- incense, hashpipes and hare krishna! Oh, AND
> Earthshoes, too.
>
>
>
>
> "Tom Fleischman" > wrote
in
> message
> >
> > The difference is, my position supports my own best interests, like
> > seeing my great-grand-children have a planet they can inhabit. My main
> > worry these day is wondering if we as a species will survive long
> > enough for me to see my great-grand-children.
> >
> > I'll give up now. You've obviously been hopelessly convinced by the
> > fascist, corporatist, propaganda you're being fed by the flat earth
> > society media whores.

Speaking of fascists:

Misc. Quotes from the Environmentalist Leadership

In their own words.... yikes!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to

come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our

valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our

homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!"

- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)

"We must ... reclaim the roads and the plowed land, halt dam construction,

tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness

millions and tens of millions of [acres of] presently settled land."

- David Foreman, Founder of Earth First! (taken from his book

Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkey Wrenching)

"We must make this an insecure and uninhabitable place for capitalists and

their projects. This is the best contribution we can make towards

protecting the earth and struggling for a liberating society."

- Ecotage, an offshoot of Earth First!

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem."

- Lamont Cole (as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book Toxic Terror)

"This is as good a way to get rid of them as any."

- Charles Wursta, Chief Scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund,

in response to the banning of DDT (as quoted in Toxic Terror by

Elisabeth Whelan) ("Them" refers to "all those little brown people

in poor countries.")

"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go

out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."

- Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace (quoted in Access to Energy, Vol.

10, No. 4, Dec 1982)

"The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have,

and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves

and our lifestyles."

- Thomas Lovejoy, tropical biologist and assistant secretary to

the Smithsonian Institution (quoted by David Brooks in The Wall

Street Journal article, "Journalists and Others for Saving the

Planet, 1989)

"Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so

exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on

prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction

needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if

scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist

on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted

perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take

action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are

perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never

knowing with certainty that they were real."

- Jonathan Schell (in his book, Our Fragile Earth)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific

evidence to back up the greenhouse effect."

- Richard Benedick, an employee from the State Department working

on assignment for the Conservation Foundation (from his report

Who Needs Evidence?)

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements,

and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide

what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

- Stephen Schneider (quoted in Our Fragile Earth by Jonathan Schell)

"Let's face it. We don't want safe nuclear power plants. We want NO

nuclear power plants."

- A spokesman for the Government Accountability Project, an

offshoot of the Institute for Policy Studies (reported in

The American Spectator, Vol 18, No. 11, Nov. 1985)

"Scientists who work for nuclear power or nuclear energy have sold their

soul to the devil. They are either dumb, stupid, or highly compromised....

Free enterprise really means rich people get richer. And they have the

freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in

the process.... Capitalism is destroying the earth. Cuba is a wonderful

country. What Castro's done is superb."

- Helen Caldicott, Australian pediatrician, speaking for the Union

of Concerned Scientists (as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her

book Toxic Terror)

"We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic

growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."

- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

Paul Ehrlich deserves special attention, because his views sum up the

anti-human trends of political-environmentalist thought -- trends that

frequently manifest themselves in predictions of global famine or plans for

draconian measures to halt or reverse population growth. In "The

Population Bomb", Ehrlich predicted that the "battle to feed humanity is

over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions

of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs

embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer."

Of course, that inevitable mass starvation didn't happen unless you were

unlucky enough to have it imposed upon you by a Communist government in

Ethiopia. But Ehrlich has persisted in his predictions. He predicted

global famine in 1985 and was wrong. Now he says that the population of

the United States will shrink from 250 million to about 22.5 million before

1999, because of famine and global warming.

He still recommends reducing population by force, saying: "Several coercive

proposals deserve serious consideration, mainly because we will ultimately

have to resort to them, unless current trends in birth rates are revised."

Among Ehrlich's "coercive proposals" for the United States are

deindustrialization, liberalized abortion, and tax breaks for people who

have themselves sterilized. Ehrlich has many supporters in the

environmental movement.

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and

traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."

- Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

(as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the

parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be]

required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes

to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, Friends of the Earth

(as quoted by Rael Jean Isaac and Erich Isaac in The Coercive Utopians,

1985)

Lastly, when Prince Philip of the United Kingdom, leader of the World

Wildlife Fund, stated recently that, were he to be reincarnated, he would

wish to return as a "killer virus to lower human population levels."

-------------------------------------------

Fascists and sick mother****ers!!!

Tom fits right in.

[Matt Barrow]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> <snip>
> > In any case, it's a problem that cannot be ignored. It's not just
> that
> > burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's:
> >
> > * fossil fuels are not infinite, and indeed although there may be
> enough
> > to outlast everyone alive today, the *cheap* oil is rather more
> > limited. Our current lifestyles don't just depend on oil, they
> depend
> > on oil that is very cheap.
> > * we are having to depend on hostile nations for energy supply
> > * the damage will not be reversable, at least not in our lifetimes.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with your first two points. The economic and
> political ramifications of relying on cheap oil are not good for
> anyone. Of course, the way most economies work, alternatives will not
> be exploited until the oil becomes more expensive than the alternative.

What you describe is a "market economy", which is rather UNCOMMON. More
common is a COMMAND economy.

> I can easily see a day when oil at $500/bbl will result in everyone
> flying high-tech solar powered airplanes (*note aviation content!*) and
> heating their homes with solar supplied hydrogen. When oil is no
> longer economically feasable, something cheaper will take its place.

Probably longgggg before oil becomes $500/bbl.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:DdUee.48$N_5.42@trndny09...
> Tom Fleischman wrote:
> >
> > I'll give up now. You've obviously been hopelessly convinced by the
> > fascist, corporatist, propaganda you're being fed by the flat earth
> > society media whores.
>
> As opposed to the people you listen to who owe their entire livelihood to
the
> ability to convince others that global warming is a problem and we had
better
> support their research into it or their organization who is working to
"fix" it.
>

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us
has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being
honest." - Stephen Schneider (quoted in Our Fragile Earth by Jonathan
Schell)

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm old enough to remember that in the 70s, "climatologists" were
> certain that the earth was fast falling into another Ice Age. In the
> U.S. the hysteria was such that they even held highly publicized
> Congressional hearings on the topic.

Yes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I remember this
"Ice Age" outcry well.

I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the "oil
will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)

My father, who worked in the gas & electric industry (as it was called
then -- none of this "energy industry" stuff), used to sit at the dinner
table and rant for 30 minutes about the ignorance and stupidity of these
assertions. He *knew* how much oil and gas was in the ground, and could see
right through the political agenda of these so-called "scientists."

Sadly, the media apparently could not.

At the time, as a young, liberal, earnest, "open-minded" Democrat, I thought
he was an idiot, and told him as much. We were doomed to a horrible future
because of the waste and largesse of his generation, and, dammit, we should
all be driving Pintos and building homes in the sides of hills!

Well, I'm sure he's chuckling right now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Misc. Quotes from the Environmentalist Leadership
>
> In their own words.... yikes!

<Very scary stuff snipped>

Crikey, Matt, that's some of the weirdest stuff I've seen from the Loony
Left.

It really makes you wonder how seemingly intelligent people like Tom can be
taken into their bizarre little world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:fjUee.54089$r53.23998@attbi_s21...
> "W P Dixon" wrote in message ...
> > Interesting dilemma!
> > Some say nothing is happening to the earth, some say the earth is doomed
> > if we keep it up.
>
> And the earth is doomed if we don't keep it up... The sun will not last
> forever --only another 5 billion years or so... Since I don't have
anything
> all that pressing that I need to do in the meantime that would cause me to
> be elsewhere, that kind of concerns me... <grin>
>
A big problem is failure to think in the long term :~)

[Jay Honeck]

>> Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives --
>> at
>> least here in the U.S.
>
> Whereas I see it's *denial* as being driven by transparent motives.

Wow. In your world, denying that a so-called problem exists verifies that
the problem exists.

Nice Catch-22!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22...
> > I'm old enough to remember that in the 70s, "climatologists" were
> > certain that the earth was fast falling into another Ice Age. In the
> > U.S. the hysteria was such that they even held highly publicized
> > Congressional hearings on the topic.
>
> Yes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I remember this
> "Ice Age" outcry well.
>
> I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the
"oil
> will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)

Um...the first ones said we'd run out in the 80's...that's the 1880's.
Seriously!!

Those arguments have been with us en mass for 100 years, always with a 10-20
year horizon.

Julian Simon made hash of that nonsense.

A good reference is Charles Maurice and Charles Smithson's _The Doomsday
Myth: 10,000 years of Economic Crisis_.

[Jay Honeck]

> I poked a hole in the sky for about an hour on Wednesday evening. Took off
> on 28 with information Hotel, on return they were using 10 and information
> was Juliet.

Ah, yes -- back to the wind!

The very next day after my original post (yesterday, Thursday) Mary and I
took off for Ft. Dodge, Iowa -- about 130 nm due west.

When we departed Iowa City, winds were light and variable, and conditions
were smooth en route at 3500 feet.

About half way there, we had to climb to 5500 feet to stay out of the bumps.
Another 15 minutes, and we went up to 7500 feet, and it was still unstable
air.

Interestingly, the winds aloft were light -- we had, at most, a 10 knot
headwind. However, as we approached Ft. Dodge, I listened to their AWOS,
and was amazed to hear surface winds were 190 at 20, gusts to 27!

Since they didn't have a north/south runway -- and we were just out screwing
around -- we looked for an airport with a runway more aligned with the wind.
Finding "Eagle Grove" on the moving map nearby, I landed on their turf Rwy
19 -- into an absolutely gale-force wind! It was so strong, I had some
difficulty standing on the wing, and Mary opted to let me fly the return leg
home. (But not until after we spent an enjoyable hour shooting the breeze
with the new FBO/A&P on the field -- a guy who was obviously very lonely and
starved for company!)

Much to Mary's chagrin, we had an uneventful flight back to Iowa City --
just 130 nm East, mind you -- and landed with the winds once again light and
variable.

That was the biggest wind gradient I've ever seen in such a short distance
without crossing any discernible weather boundary. There was no front, no
storm, no low pressure nearby -- NOTHING to explain such a huge difference
in wind in such a short distance.

Bizarre winds in springtime, for sure.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
> --
> Frank....H

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:qgVee.54306$r53.26310@attbi_s21...
> > Misc. Quotes from the Environmentalist Leadership
> >
> > In their own words.... yikes!
>
> <Very scary stuff snipped>
>
> Crikey, Matt, that's some of the weirdest stuff I've seen from the Loony
> Left.
>
> It really makes you wonder how seemingly intelligent people like Tom can
be
> taken into their bizarre little world.

I think he used a self-description in his post.

[Jay Honeck]

> What planet are you guys from? Don't you live here too? Your own best
> interests, man!!

Living in a self-created left-wing fantasyland is hardly in my "best
interest."

Every idea I've heard bandied about that would supposedly "solve" global
warming coincidentally (not!) would also cripple the world economy, cause
massive social and economic upheaval, and would effectively dismantle
industries worldwide.

In short, it would mean the crippling of the Capitalist economic system.

Don't you find it just a bit strange that this very scenario fits precisely
into the Left's long-held political desires? Aren't you the least bit
suspicious when specious scientific theories produce politically desirable
outcomes?

Come on, man. Take off the blinders. Be at least a little skeptical,
rather than swallowing all this tripe whole.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:DdUee.48$N_5.42@trndny09...
> > Tom Fleischman wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll give up now. You've obviously been hopelessly convinced by the
> > > fascist, corporatist, propaganda you're being fed by the flat earth
> > > society media whores.
> >
> > As opposed to the people you listen to who owe their entire livelihood
to
> the
> > ability to convince others that global warming is a problem and we had
> better
> > support their research into it or their organization who is working to
> "fix" it.
> >
>
> "[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
> statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us
> has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being
> honest." - Stephen Schneider (quoted in Our Fragile Earth by Jonathan
> Schell)
>

And so far scientists have been inaccurate and dishonest. How many times in
the past hundred years have they said oil would run out in the next few
years?

[Dylan Smith]

In article <NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Sadly, the media apparently could not.

I think we can ALL agree that the media generally prefer hysteria,
because it sells! (You used to be in the newspaper business, right, so I
probably don't need to tell you this!)

> because of the waste and largesse of his generation, and, dammit, we should
> all be driving Pintos and building homes in the sides of hills!

The irony being that Pintos aren't really that efficient anyway. A car I
had as a student had the Pinto 2.0L engine. It was not only slower than
my current car, it was less economical too. However, the Pinto unit was
simple and pretty easy to work on.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <fjUee.54089$r53.23998@attbi_s21>, Grumman-581 wrote:
> And the earth is doomed if we don't keep it up... The sun will not last
> forever --only another 5 billion years or so...

As an aside, whilst the Sun remains main sequence, life will be
extremely resilient. Anyone who's tried to keep a patio free of weeds or
has seen an abandoned airfield or road will know how it doesn't take
long for life to reclaim even tough surfaces like asphalt.

Remember the film, "The Day After"? Had those events come to pass in
1983, by now the ruins of Kansas City would be well overgrown.

The thing is, it'd be nice to keep ourselves in a situation where we can
continue to enjoy the high standard of living we do now - and that will
require change of some sort.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jay Honeck]

> The thing is, it'd be nice to keep ourselves in a situation where we can
> continue to enjoy the high standard of living we do now - and that will
> require change of some sort.

Agreed.

But I, as opposed to many, have faith that the economic system will
"provide" us with the solution, as it did when petroleum supplanted whale
oil. If I had to guess at this early stage, I'd say that the solution will
be hydrogen -- but there's really no way to tell.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <au2fe.55730$NU4.36038@attbi_s22>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> But I, as opposed to many, have faith that the economic system will
> "provide" us with the solution, as it did when petroleum supplanted whale
> oil. If I had to guess at this early stage, I'd say that the solution will
> be hydrogen -- but there's really no way to tell.

I'd guess more diesel-type fuels; trouble with hydrogen is it's
difficult to store, difficult to handle, costs lots of energy to make
(either with oil directly or by electrolyis). Diesel-type fuels on the
other hand can be made from biological products (such as algae - that
way you could have an industrial manufacturing process instead of an
agricultural one), and would not require a vast replacement of existing
infrastructure. Jet engines already run on a type of diesel fuel. So do
Thielert GA diesels.

We already run our glider club diesel vehicles on used cooking oil
kindly donated by one of the pubs...

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:au2fe.55730$NU4.36038@attbi_s22...
> > The thing is, it'd be nice to keep ourselves in a situation where we can
> > continue to enjoy the high standard of living we do now - and that will
> > require change of some sort.
>
> Agreed.

Disagree.

As our standard of living has improved over the past couple hundred years,
our envirnment has become, concurrently, healthier.

Wealthier people keep their world cleaner (go to an upscale neighborhood and
contrst that with the innder city) , even with out the envirofascists
goosestepping.

> But I, as opposed to many, have faith that the economic system will
> "provide" us with the solution, as it did when petroleum supplanted whale
> oil. If I had to guess at this early stage, I'd say that the solution
will
> be hydrogen -- but there's really no way to tell.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <au2fe.55730$NU4.36038@attbi_s22>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> trouble with hydrogen is it's
> difficult to store, difficult to handle, costs lots of energy to make
> (either with oil directly or by electrolyis).

Today it is, but it's like oil was 100 years ago.

Not wanting to be harsh, but stop thinking statically, in the short
term...try thinking like an inventor/entrepreneur, not a schoolboy/employee.
Most of all, stop barfing back with the schools/media feeds you.

[RST Engineering]

I, too, believe that hydrogen is the fuel of the future, but perhaps in a
slightly different vein. One of my senior projects involved the
calculations on what it would take and what would be the result of
converting hydrogen to helium (the fusion reaction).

The output is an amazing amount of energy. If we had tossed as much money
at taming fusion as we have tossed at unworkable military toys, we'd be
riding around in electric vehicles with fusion providing the recharge
energy.

Jim



>
> Today it is, but it's like oil was 100 years ago.
>
> Not wanting to be harsh, but stop thinking statically, in the short
> term...try thinking like an inventor/entrepreneur, not a
> schoolboy/employee.
> Most of all, stop barfing back with the schools/media feeds you.
>
>
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
>> In article <au2fe.55730$NU4.36038@attbi_s22>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> trouble with hydrogen is it's
>> difficult to store, difficult to handle, costs lots of energy to make
>> (either with oil directly or by electrolyis).
>
> Today it is, but it's like oil was 100 years ago.
>
> Not wanting to be harsh, but stop thinking statically, in the short
> term...try thinking like an inventor/entrepreneur, not a schoolboy/employee.
> Most of all, stop barfing back with the schools/media feeds you.

Actually, it's the schools/media feeding everyone this hydrogen pipe
dream. It's precisely because I'm thinking like an inventor/entrepreneur
that I suspect it will be much more practical, cheaper, faster and
better to develop diesel based technologies when it comes to the storage
and use of fuels (particularly in large machines).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
> >> In article <au2fe.55730$NU4.36038@attbi_s22>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> trouble with hydrogen is it's
> >> difficult to store, difficult to handle, costs lots of energy to make
> >> (either with oil directly or by electrolyis).
> >
> > Today it is, but it's like oil was 100 years ago.
> >
> > Not wanting to be harsh, but stop thinking statically, in the short
> > term...try thinking like an inventor/entrepreneur, not a
schoolboy/employee.
> > Most of all, stop barfing back with the schools/media feeds you.
>
> Actually, it's the schools/media feeding everyone this hydrogen pipe
> dream.

Absolute BS!

> It's precisely because I'm thinking like an inventor/entrepreneur
> that I suspect it will be much more practical, cheaper, faster and
> better to develop diesel based technologies when it comes to the storage
> and use of fuels (particularly in large machines).

You call going with a slight adjustment to the status quo
inventor/entrepreneurship?

[Grumman-581]

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
> If we had tossed as much money at taming fusion as
> we have tossed at unworkable military toys, we'd be
> riding around in electric vehicles with fusion providing
> the recharge energy.

And best of all, we wouldn't have terrorism because they wouldn't have the
money to sponsor it... They would all go back to being the POOR camel
****in' Bedoins that they had been throughout history (vs the rich camel
****in' Bedoins that they are now)... Hell, if we spent the billions that
fighting the latest skirmish is costing us, we might have been able to find
a cheap alternative for petroleum... Of course, it would have been more
economical to just nuke 'em to start with...

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
> You call going with a slight adjustment to the status quo
> inventor/entrepreneurship?

No, that's why I didn't mention one.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jose]

> Wealthier people keep their world cleaner (go to an upscale neighborhood and
> contrst that with the innder city) , even with out the envirofascists
> goosestepping.

Do they do this by generating less filth, or by dumping their filth on
the less wealthy people?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Chris]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> As our standard of living has improved over the past couple hundred years,
> our envirnment has become, concurrently, healthier.
>
> Wealthier people keep their world cleaner (go to an upscale neighborhood
> and
> contrst that with the innder city) , even with out the envirofascists
> goosestepping.

Total ********- when 4% of the worlds population create 23% of the worlds
greenhouse gasses, I would not equate that with the wealthy protecting the
neighbourhood. In this case by neighbourhood I mean the world.

[Matt Barrow]

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
> If we had tossed as much money at taming fusion as
> we have tossed at unworkable military toys, we'd be
> riding around in electric vehicles with fusion providing
> the recharge energy.

The thing is, unworkaboe military toys are akin to the process of making
WORKABLE military toys.

I can't imagine an engineer (you?) would miss tha distinction.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> > Wealthier people keep their world cleaner (go to an upscale neighborhood
and
> > contrst that with the innder city) , even with out the envirofascists
> > goosestepping.
>
> Do they do this by generating less filth, or by dumping their filth on
> the less wealthy people?

Christ, what a stupid response.

Where are the garbage disposal sites around your town, in the inner cities?

Get a friggin' clue!

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
> > You call going with a slight adjustment to the status quo
> > inventor/entrepreneurship?
>
> No, that's why I didn't mention one.

Umm...yes, you did.

Diesels are neither necessary, even in the longer term, nor desirable due to
their ability to generate pollution if not maintained.

And inventor/entrepreneur is still bound by laws of the market unless they
live in a command economy.

[George Patterson]

RST Engineering wrote:
> If we had tossed as much money
> at taming fusion as we have tossed at unworkable military toys, we'd be
> riding around in electric vehicles with fusion providing the recharge
> energy.

We tossed hundreds of millions of dollars at it at Oak Ridge alone for at least
30 years. I don't know much about what's gone on there since my father died in
'89, but they may still be working on cold fusion down in "reactor row." Last I
heard, they still hadn't licked the problem of plasma containment.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Jose]

> Christ, what a stupid response. [...]
> Get a friggin' clue!

hmmph.

> Where are the garbage disposal sites around your town, in the inner cities?

Actually, yes. And the same thing is probably true where you live too.

Here, the garbage is taken to a "transfer station", not a dump. The
difference is garbage in a dump stays there, and garbage in a transfer
station gets transferred elsewhere, in this case to a less affluent city
thirty miles further south. From there (IIRC) it is processed, and put
on a barge to go somewhere else. I'm not sure exactly where "else" it
goes, but it probably ends up in a giant dump in the middle of a nearby
large city where it stays until another barge takes it out to the ocean.
If it ever gets there.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

Sonny, I spent my first ten years out of college working on military toys
that didn't have a chance in hell of working. You don't think I can make
the distinction? STINK is the operative part of distinction here.

Jim



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

[RST Engineering]

Hundreds of millions? Hell, we are spending hundreds of millions a DAY in
Iraq to keep our oil flowing. Cold fusion is a dream; hot fusion is
reality. Tens of billions to create a magnetic Klein bottle, and we are
home free for a couple of thousand years.

Jim




"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:yxefe.2023$7G.732@trndny01...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> If we had tossed as much money at taming fusion as we have tossed at
>> unworkable military toys, we'd be riding around in electric vehicles with
>> fusion providing the recharge energy.
>
> We tossed hundreds of millions of dollars at it at Oak Ridge alone for at
> least 30 years. I don't know much about what's gone on there since my
> father died in '89, but they may still be working on cold fusion down in
> "reactor row." Last I heard, they still hadn't licked the problem of
> plasma containment.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

[Jose]

> Tens of billions to create a magnetic Klein bottle

You sure you mean a "klein bottle"? If we could create a real Klein
bottle, we'd be home free forever.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

>> Where are the garbage disposal sites around your town, in the inner
>> cities?
>
> Actually, yes. And the same thing is probably true where you live too.
>
> Here, the garbage is taken to a "transfer station", not a dump. The
> difference is garbage in a dump stays there, and garbage in a transfer
> station gets transferred elsewhere, in this case to a less affluent city
> thirty miles further south. From there (IIRC) it is processed, and put on
> a barge to go somewhere else. I'm not sure exactly where "else" it goes,
> but it probably ends up in a giant dump in the middle of a nearby large
> city where it stays until another barge takes it out to the ocean. If it
> ever gets there.

I think you're missing Matt's point, which is that a wealthy people will do
whatever it takes to keep themselves wealthy (and successful) -- including
cleaning up the environment. To a large degree, this has been accomplished
in America. (As anyone who lived through the 60s, 70s, and 80s can attest
to. Heck, I couldn't swim in Lake Michigan as a boy. Now, it's so clean,
all the lake perch have died off -- because they can't hide from the
predators! The water is simply too clean.)

In my opinion, inner city ghettos are the biggest paradox in American life.
Having worked in several for seven years of my life, collecting bills, I am
qualified to tell you that they are filthy, vermin-ridden areas that are
populated with the most bizarre dregs of the universe. We are talking lazy,
dangerous people who routinely disregard personal safety to live a lifestyle
that, by any measure, is completely self-destructive.

And, most amazingly of all, much of this happens for NO apparent reason.
The lifestyle is a CHOICE -- it's not "put on them by the Man" or, imposed
because of "prejudice" -- or any other knee-jerk, easy explanations. In
fact, many inner city folks are incredibly intelligent people -- they just
choose to live a morally bankrupt lifestyle that must be quarantined from
the rest of society.

Which, of course, is why the inner cities are so dangerous. No one really
knows how to "fix" them -- so they are merely "contained."

It's all so terribly sad.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Hundreds of millions?

Per year.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Jose]

> I think you're missing Matt's point, which is that a wealthy people will do
> whatever it takes to keep themselves wealthy (and successful) -- including
> cleaning up the environment.

Point taken. But before they clean up "the" environment, they clean up
"their" environment. If that's sufficient, they stop.

The US is a "wealthy people", and we clean up "our" environment by
polluting other people's (such as Iraq). Why risk leaking our oil all
over the Alaskan tundra when we can let Iraq take the eco-hit, and save
our own? That's the thinking.

Garbage doesn't just "go away". It goes -somewhere-, and it's not the
back yard of the wealthy.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> The US is a "wealthy people", and we clean up "our" environment by
> polluting other people's (such as Iraq). Why risk leaking our oil all
> over the Alaskan tundra when we can let Iraq take the eco-hit, and save
> our own? That's the thinking.

That's an interesting way to look at trade. I always thought that the
people who were getting paid were in the driver's seat -- but your theory
seems to put the buyer's in control.

Maybe that was once the case, but I would submit that the current world
energy model does not support your theory. (Although Iraq is not fully
re-integrated into the free market, so their case is a bit different.) It
would appear that the sellers are in command -- and have been for a good
long time -- and we're transferring nothing to them but our wealth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[W P Dixon]

HEE HEE,
Yes one must not forget their sunscreen!!!!!!;)


"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:fjUee.54089$r53.23998@attbi_s21...
> "W P Dixon" wrote in message ...
>> Interesting dilemma!
>> Some say nothing is happening to the earth, some say the earth is doomed
>> if we keep it up.
>
> And the earth is doomed if we don't keep it up... The sun will not last
> forever --only another 5 billion years or so... Since I don't have
> anything
> all that pressing that I need to do in the meantime that would cause me to
> be elsewhere, that kind of concerns me... <grin>
>
>

[W P Dixon]

Whatever you wish to believe you knock yourself out;)


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Even in those primitive circumstances you would in fact be consuming.
>> Just not to the extent of how modern folks do it. You would have to hunt
>> for food, cut trees to build your cabin, heat and cook.
>
> Burning wood for energy is one of the worst forms of pollution, by the
> way. But in any case, even if the lifestyle you suggest were the best way
> to conserve, your claim is apparently that no one can claim to be a
> conservationist unless they live that lifestyle. That's bull.
>
>> It's not bull, but the refusal to see the outright stupidity of
>> someone complaining about "global warming" while not doing anything to
>> correct it , especially by flying airplanes around, is in deed bull.
>
> Who says they are not doing anything to correct it?
>
> By your own admission, one can "conserve" without halting all consumption
> at all. One can even use resources recreationally, without using them
> wastefully. To characterize environmentalists as being different from
> wasteful consumers only in their speech, and not in their actions, is to
> be completely ignorant of the ways one can conserve while still engaging
> in an active, fruitful, and entertained life.
>
>> Just like most problems some must be on the far right or the far left
>> of an issue, when the answer is usually in the middle somewhere.
>
> That's true. So why do you assert that one has to take their lifestyle to
> the extreme primitive in order to be a conservationist? Why do you assert
> that it's hypocritical to do anything other than engage in the extreme
> primitive lifestyle and at the same time talk of conservation?
>
>> That was the point of the post.
>
> Really? You wrote:
>
> " To say "the sky is falling" while you still drive your
> car , plane , even use toilet paper to wipe your butt with ( think how
> many
> trees are cut down for that every year! WOW! And that's just for my
> bathroom! ;) ) is not really sincere in your beliefs."
>
> That is, you claim that someone arguing for conservation is insincere if
> they use toilet paper. Again, that's just bull. And it's not at all the
> point you claim to have been trying to make.
>
>> [...]
>> Living is one thing, our hobbies that pollute is another , wouldn't
>> you agree? So to preach "global warming" while driving to the airport, to
>> get in a plane and fly for a few hours, to go home and sit and say
>> somebody needs to do something about our planet....it's like DUHHHHHHH!
>
> So far, it's been your writing on the topic that's "like DUHHHHHHH!" We
> could shut down ALL recreational flying and not make a noticeable dent in
> our consumption of fossil fuels. To claim that a recreational pilot is
> hypocritical for arguing for conservation, even though they fly
> recreationally, that's bull.
>
> Pete
>

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in

> In my opinion, inner city ghettos are the biggest paradox in American
> life. Having worked in several for seven years of my life, collecting
> bills, I am qualified to tell you that they are filthy, vermin-ridden
> areas that are populated with the most bizarre dregs of the universe. We
> are talking lazy, dangerous people who routinely disregard personal safety
> to live a lifestyle that, by any measure, is completely self-destructive.
>
> And, most amazingly of all, much of this happens for NO apparent reason.
> The lifestyle is a CHOICE -- it's not "put on them by the Man" or, imposed
> because of "prejudice" -- or any other knee-jerk, easy explanations. In
> fact, many inner city folks are incredibly intelligent people -- they just
> choose to live a morally bankrupt lifestyle that must be quarantined from
> the rest of society.

It's OT but always nice to hear. The Officially Sad, reproductive warriors
and hind-gut fermenters are a decent lot until you have to pay for them.
Which you do. It's odd, eh? You meet the most adorable people who are
happy to live a life of self abuse supported by others barely paying for it.
But, happy they are. On your tab. Your experience is appreciated.

moo

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
> And inventor/entrepreneur is still bound by laws of the market unless they
> live in a command economy.

Exactly; that's why the 'hydrogen economy' won't be here any time soon,
but biodiesels will be. The back end for the use of biodiesel needs a
radical change but the front end (i.e. the end users) don't need the
radical change.

Look at pretty much any entrepeneur - I think we can all agree Bill
Gates is an exemplar with this - yet Bill Gates and Microsoft have never
done anything radical at the 'front end' because the market won't stand
for it. (In fact Microsoft can barely be counted as being an innovator)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <FWffe.63591$c24.40058@attbi_s72>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> cleaning up the environment. To a large degree, this has been accomplished
> in America. (As anyone who lived through the 60s, 70s, and 80s can attest
> to.

There's still a way to go but I'd agree with that. In Britain, a few
decades ago people died in large numbers from the sooty smog in London.

My DPE who did my instrument checkride told me about how the rivers
used to catch fire in Beaumont, TX.

However, from having lived in the oil refinery part of Houston (smack
between La Porte and Texas City) I can tell you that there is still work
to do - the sky still turns green and the stench can be pretty awful.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jose]

>>The US is a "wealthy people", and we clean up "our" environment by
>> polluting other people's (such as Iraq). Why risk leaking our oil all
>> over the Alaskan tundra when we can let Iraq take the eco-hit, and save
>> our own? That's the thinking.
>
> That's an interesting way to look at trade. I always thought that the
> people who were getting paid were in the driver's seat -- but your theory
> seems to put the buyer's in control.

In trade, each one tries to get what they don't have, and gives away
what they do have. Someone who is hungry trades money for food. Who is
"in control" - the store owner or the hugry patron? Does it matter to
the question whether the food in question is nutritious or not?

Some who are destitue trade sex for money. Who is "in control" here -
the whore or the john? In both cases, the trade occurs at a mutually
decided price; nobody is in control in a free market (and I'm not
presuming a non-free market).

What is significant however is that the =reason= somebody is trading
money for food is that they are hungry - something whose origin is
beyond their control, and whose solution presents itself in the trade.

In the case of trading garbage for money, we are doing it with towns who
need to overlook the long term consequences of having a garbage dump on
Main Street in exchange for the short term benefits of getting their
police force paid. The one "in control" (in the sense that I am
interpreting your comment for my quoted example) is the one that doesn't
have to consider the long term consequence of a trade. The one under
(more) pressure is the one that needs to subjugate the long term
consequences for the short term gain.

We can discuss forever just what those long term consequences are, and
how serious they are, but so long as I am hungry -now-, I'll pay too
much for a not-very-healthy hot dog if that's all that's available.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

I understand the topologist's definition of Klein bottle; those working on
hot fusion have nicknamed the process of containing the energy created a
Klein bottle because it seems (seemed?) to be the same impossible task.

Jim


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Tens of billions to create a magnetic Klein bottle
>
> You sure you mean a "klein bottle"? If we could create a real Klein
> bottle, we'd be home free forever.
>
> Jose
> --
> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Whatever you wish to believe you knock yourself out;)

lol...

You've been shown to be incorrect, and even self-contradictory, and that's
all you can come up with? Okay then...

[Matt Barrow]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > Christ, what a stupid response. [...]
> > Get a friggin' clue!
>
> hmmph.
>
> > Where are the garbage disposal sites around your town, in the inner
cities?
>
> Actually, yes. And the same thing is probably true where you live too.
>
> Here, the garbage is taken to a "transfer station", not a dump. The
> difference is garbage in a dump stays there, and garbage in a transfer
> station gets transferred elsewhere, in this case to a less affluent city
> thirty miles further south. From there (IIRC) it is processed, and put
> on a barge to go somewhere else.

Where is that "someplace else"? Do you know or are you just pulling
suppositions out of your ass?

> I'm not sure exactly where "else" it
> goes, but it probably ends up in a giant dump in the middle of a nearby
> large city where it stays until another barge takes it out to the ocean.

Befoe shooting your mouth off, why don't you try finding out how is happens?

> If it ever gets there.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:iUgfe.56866$r53.43501@attbi_s21...
> > The US is a "wealthy people", and we clean up "our" environment by
> > polluting other people's (such as Iraq).

Clueless.

> > Why risk leaking our oil all
> > over the Alaskan tundra

What has been the history of the Alaska pipeline since it was built?

> >when we can let Iraq take the eco-hit, and save
> > our own? That's the thinking.

He wouldn't know thinking if it bit him in the ass.
>
> That's an interesting way to look at trade. I always thought that the
> people who were getting paid were in the driver's seat -- but your theory
> seems to put the buyer's in control.

Pure Keynesianism.

> Maybe that was once the case, but I would submit that the current world
> energy model does not support your theory. (Although Iraq is not fully
> re-integrated into the free market, so their case is a bit different.)
It
> would appear that the sellers are in command -- and have been for a good
> long time -- and we're transferring nothing to them but our wealth.

As above.

[Matt Barrow]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Hundreds of millions? Hell, we are spending hundreds of millions a DAY in
> Iraq to keep our oil flowing. Cold fusion is a dream; hot fusion is
> reality. Tens of billions to create a magnetic Klein bottle, and we are
> home free for a couple of thousand years.
>

Think you could get some investors?

[Matt Barrow]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Sonny, I spent my first ten years out of college working on military toys
> that didn't have a chance in hell of working.

Such as? Expound on that if your would...and please, no annecdotes.


> You don't think I can make
> the distinction?

When doing R&D, how do we know what will work and what won't?

[RST Engineering]

> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sonny, I spent my first ten years out of college working on military toys
>> that didn't have a chance in hell of working.
>
> Such as? Expound on that if your would...and please, no annecdotes.

First of all, that is anecdotes. Is your spell checker not working these
days? And it is you, and not your.

Second of all, how can you relate an experience working on a project without
telling the story? Anecdotal memory is all we have unless you want a
transcript out of my engineering notebook.

Third, what I was working on in those days was TS, and I'm not about to
jeopardize my ever getting a TS clearance again by relating to you the guts
of what I was doing. I have absolutely no idea if the stuff has been
released into the public domain, but I highly doubt it.

One of the projects was an electrically steerable antenna array meant to
interfere with another signal. It was so goosey and unstable that the only
way we could keep it reasonably operational was to hold ambient temperature
within a couple of degrees and vibration to a tenth of a G. And this was an
aircraft application.

One of the projects was a powerline detector for rotary wing aircraft that
would certainly detect powerlines, but about two seconds AFTER the aircraft
impacted the lines at any reasonable forward velocity.

There are half a dozen more, equally as ridiculous.

>
>> You don't think I can make
>> the distinction?
>
> When doing R&D, how do we know what will work and what won't?

When you are asked to do something that violates a basic law of known
physics. Sure, you can be Einstein and discover a whole new set of laws,
but don't bet the farm on it.

Jim

[Grumman-581]

Jose wrote:
> Garbage doesn't just "go away". It goes -somewhere-, and
> it's not the back yard of the wealthy.

Nawh, but it sometimes becomes their golf courses after the landfill
has been completed...

[Jose]

> Do you know or are you just pulling
> suppositions out of your ass?


> Befoe shooting your mouth off...

I'm not really all that inclined to respond to rude and vulgar posters
who can't spell.

It doesn't matter where that "someplace else" is - already the town
thirty miles south of us is less wealthy than this town, so makes my
point, which is that the wealthy towns tend to send their garbage to
less wealthy towns (who are more willing to take money in exchange for
allowing the wealthy to dump garbage on them).

I do know where it all ends up, and it's not the backyard of the
wealthy. I even know pretty much where =my= garbage ends up. But the
point it, it doesn't stay in my garage.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in

As, according to your earlier statements, your village harbours one of
the world's leading university, I suggest you to look it up in their
library or ask a prof or two. You wouldn't believe me, anyway.

> front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring in
> major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
> of emissions.

You also believed that the Iraq had WMDs. Sorry, OT, but I can't resist,
it drives me incredibly angry. No, I won't "get over it".

Stefan

[Grumman-581]

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
> However, from having lived in the oil refinery part of Houston (smack
> between La Porte and Texas City) I can tell you that there is still work
> to do - the sky still turns green and the stench can be pretty awful.

Nothing quite like coming into HOU from the NE, learning that they're
landing on 04 and being directed by ATV over "Stinky"-dena on a hot Houston
day with a lot of thermals...

[Grumman-581]

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
> Look at pretty much any entrepeneur - I think we can all agree Bill
> Gates is an exemplar with this - yet Bill Gates and Microsoft have never
> done anything radical at the 'front end' because the market won't stand
> for it. (In fact Microsoft can barely be counted as being an innovator)

The "Blue Screen of Death" does not count as innovative? Damn, you're hard
to please...

[Dylan Smith]

In article <HtHfe.65240$NU4.52784@attbi_s22>, Grumman-581 wrote:
> The "Blue Screen of Death" does not count as innovative? Damn, you're hard
> to please...

Apparently, Longhorn will also have a *red* screen of death!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jay Honeck]

> You also believed that the Iraq had WMDs.

As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.

Why? Because he DID have them, and used them -- on his own people.

I know you (and your ilk) would love to simply forget that little detail --
but it inconveniently won't go away.

> Sorry, OT, but I can't resist, it drives me incredibly angry.

Why? The world is a better place without Saddam.

> No, I won't "get over it".

Sure you will.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:HtHfe.65240$NU4.52784@attbi_s22...
> "Dylan Smith" wrote in message
> ...
> > Look at pretty much any entrepeneur - I think we can all agree Bill
> > Gates is an exemplar with this - yet Bill Gates and Microsoft have never
> > done anything radical at the 'front end' because the market won't stand
> > for it. (In fact Microsoft can barely be counted as being an innovator)
>
> The "Blue Screen of Death" does not count as innovative? Damn, you're
hard
> to please...
>
I understand that the vast majority of MS's R&D goes for reverse engineering
competing products.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:2mJfe.64415$r53.13498@attbi_s21...
> > You also believed that the Iraq had WMDs.
>
> As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.
>
> Why? Because he DID have them, and used them -- on his own people.
>
> I know you (and your ilk) would love to simply forget that little
detail --
> but it inconveniently won't go away.
>
> > Sorry, OT, but I can't resist, it drives me incredibly angry.
>
> Why? The world is a better place without Saddam.
>
> > No, I won't "get over it".
>
> Sure you will.

One never gets over denial!

-------------------
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line." -
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." -
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." -
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." -
Letter to President Bush,
Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001!

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Sadd! am has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction." -
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:2mJfe.64415$r53.13498@attbi_s21...
>> You also believed that the Iraq had WMDs.
>
> As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.

Who exactly? There were plenty of people saying that they didn't have
meaningful WMD, including most of OUR people actually involved in weapons
inspections. The administration chose to include data that supported their
position and ignore data that didn't.

>
> Why? Because he DID have them, and used them -- on his own people.
>
> I know you (and your ilk) would love to simply forget that little
> detail -- but it inconveniently won't go away.

Everybody recognizes that Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people but
that doesn't say anything about whether they had them at a later date. In
fact, they did not.

>
>> Sorry, OT, but I can't resist, it drives me incredibly angry.
>
> Why? The world is a better place without Saddam.

Depends on who replaces him. Saddam was an evil tyrant, that is undisputed,
but he (as a secular leader) was also the natural enemy of fundamentalist
Islam (Our REAL enemy). This is a key point that most people seem to miss.
Saddam killed thousands of Iraqi civiilians. Over the past few years the US
has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. They will not forget this. Iraq
is not a natual country, it is made up a three parts that would perfer to
live with their religious/cultural brethren. Naturally it would be a
disaster (for us) if the country was split up between Iran, Syria and an
independent Kurdistan. This leaves us with the problem that SOMEBODY has to
keep Iraq together, probably by force. Saddam was doing this, now we must
do it or the government that we will be seen to have installed must do it.
Most of the rest of the world recognized this.

The bottom line is that we (in the US) were fed a lot of BS. It is natural
that we would believe our elected leaders initially, but we are stupid if we
continue to believe them after learning that we were lied to. Are the
Iraqis better off? Probably. Are we better of? Probably not.

Mike
MU-2

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22...
> I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the
"oil
> will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)

When I was in school in the 1970s/80s, it was given as being about 300 years
so I'm not sure where the "by the year 1990" came from.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> And, is global warming really a bad thing? 2/3rd of the earth is largely
> uninhabitable due to COLD.

Isn't that more down to the fact that it's wet? :-)

Unfortunately for the places where humans live at the moment, it
just means different - more storms, more floods, more droughts,
etc. With regard to here in the UK, it seems that the weather used
to be best ("summer" weather) in July and August. Now it seems that
the best weather here is in May and June, with July, August and
September being quite wet, with frequent thunderstorms. Sort of thing
you see in sub-tropical areas! Various sub-tropical creatures which
could previously only be found in the far south of the country are
starting to be found further north.

This cannot be totally blamed on man-made warming...indeed the
earth's temperature closely follows solar activity if I remember
correctly. But in support of the man made change, records were
studied from the past 300 years or so. it shows a strong correlation
between solar activity and average earth temperatures - the two went
up and down together...until the Industrial Revolution, when the two
lines started diverging in the same proportion to the estimated global
production of man-made carbon dioxide.

Paul

[George Patterson]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22...
>
>>I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the
>
> "oil
>
>>will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)
>
>
> When I was in school in the 1970s/80s, it was given as being about 300 years
> so I'm not sure where the "by the year 1990" came from.

Figures like these were highly publicised in the U.S. during the Iranian oil
embargo. They were used as scare tactics to try to establish gasoline rationing
(amoung other things). I remember in 1979 being told by a co-worker not to throw
away some item I'd broken. "By the year 2000, genuine plastic will be worth a
lot of money, 'cause they won't be able to make it any more."

The claims I heard most often from the media heads and "experts" were that the
world's known reserves would be "exhausted in 15 to 20 years." I quit watching
TV in late 1980, so I don't know when they quit making these claims, but they
repeated them all through the late '70s.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Legrande Harris]

Has there ever been a prediction by an "environmentalist" that has come
true? All the predictions I have seen that have come due are wrong.
All the worlds population aren't starving. The forests and jungles
aren't gone. The worlds mean temperature hasn't risen 5 degrees. The
Oceans aren't 10 feet higher. Ninety percent of the animals on the
earth haven't been forced into extinction. Oil hasn't been depleted.
The Ice age hasn't come. About the only prediction I have seen from
"environmentalists" that might be true is that the environment is going
to change :)

I will make a prediction :) In ten years "environmentalist" will be the
common term for "nutcase".

LG

[Dave Stadt]

"Legrande Harris" > wrote in message
...
>> I will make a prediction :) In ten years "environmentalist" will be the
> common term for "nutcase".
>
> LG

That prediction came true about 25 years ago.

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.

Except those who actually were there and did first hand research.
(Remember the IAEO? Their reports were pretty clear.)

> I know you (and your ilk)

It's always interesting to see at which point the arguments change from
"you" to "you and your ilk". Time to leave the discussion.

Stefan

[Matt Barrow]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22...
> > I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the
> "oil
> > will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)
>
> When I was in school in the 1970s/80s, it was given as being about 300
years
> so I'm not sure where the "by the year 1990" came from.

Paul Erlich.

[Matt Barrow]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And, is global warming really a bad thing? 2/3rd of the earth is largely
> > uninhabitable due to COLD.
>
> Isn't that more down to the fact that it's wet? :-)
>
> Unfortunately for the places where humans live at the moment, it
> just means different - more storms, more floods, more droughts,

IIRC, a warmer climate would also be wetter, particularly in the growing
areas. Droughts are, OTOH, more local, I believe.

> etc. With regard to here in the UK, it seems that the weather used
> to be best ("summer" weather) in July and August. Now it seems that
> the best weather here is in May and June, with July, August and
> September being quite wet, with frequent thunderstorms. Sort of thing
> you see in sub-tropical areas! Various sub-tropical creatures which
> could previously only be found in the far south of the country are
> starting to be found further north.

A longer growing season (see above).

> This cannot be totally blamed on man-made warming...indeed the
> earth's temperature closely follows solar activity if I remember
> correctly. But in support of the man made change, records were
> studied from the past 300 years or so. it shows a strong correlation
> between solar activity and average earth temperatures - the two went
> up and down together...until the Industrial Revolution, when the two
> lines started diverging in the same proportion to the estimated global
> production of man-made carbon dioxide.

I believe ice cores tell a much different story. Also, satellite temps,
taken away from heat islands indicate slight cooling over the past 15-20. ??

[Jay Honeck]

> It's always interesting to see at which point the arguments change from
> "you" to "you and your ilk". Time to leave the discussion.

Sorry, that did sound a bit rude, didn't it?

I meant it to mean "you and people who believe as you do"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Stefan wrote:
> It's always interesting to see at which point the arguments change from
> "you" to "you and your ilk". Time to leave the discussion.

If anyone's interested, there is an annual gathering of Ilk at
Pinckneyville Du Quoin airport every May.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Ash Wyllie]

Matt Barrow opined

>"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
>news:HtHfe.65240$NU4.52784@attbi_s22...
>> "Dylan Smith" wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Look at pretty much any entrepeneur - I think we can all agree Bill
>> > Gates is an exemplar with this - yet Bill Gates and Microsoft have never
>> > done anything radical at the 'front end' because the market won't stand
>> > for it. (In fact Microsoft can barely be counted as being an innovator)
>>
>> The "Blue Screen of Death" does not count as innovative? Damn, you're
>hard
>> to please...
>>

The history of computing can be documented by things that M$ didn't invent.

>I understand that the vast majority of MS's R&D goes for reverse engineering
>competing products.

And if that doesn't work, buy the competition.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 9 May 2005 at 18:17:51 in message
>, Paul Sengupta
> wrote:
>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> And, is global warming really a bad thing? 2/3rd of the earth is largely
>> uninhabitable due to COLD.
>
>Isn't that more down to the fact that it's wet? :-)
>
>Unfortunately for the places where humans live at the moment, it
>just means different - more storms, more floods, more droughts,
>etc. With regard to here in the UK, it seems that the weather used
>to be best ("summer" weather) in July and August. Now it seems that
>the best weather here is in May and June, with July, August and
>September being quite wet, with frequent thunderstorms. Sort of thing
>you see in sub-tropical areas! Various sub-tropical creatures which
>could previously only be found in the far south of the country are
>starting to be found further north.
>
>This cannot be totally blamed on man-made warming...indeed the
>earth's temperature closely follows solar activity if I remember
>correctly. But in support of the man made change, records were
>studied from the past 300 years or so. it shows a strong correlation
>between solar activity and average earth temperatures - the two went
>up and down together...until the Industrial Revolution, when the two
>lines started diverging in the same proportion to the estimated global
>production of man-made carbon dioxide.
>
Can you please provide references for the source of this information? I
am very interested. The industrial revolution started around the 1740s
I think but perhaps you have a later starting point?
--
David CL Francis

[Matt Barrow]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow opined
>
> >"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> >news:HtHfe.65240$NU4.52784@attbi_s22...
> >> "Dylan Smith" wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Look at pretty much any entrepeneur - I think we can all agree Bill
> >> > Gates is an exemplar with this - yet Bill Gates and Microsoft have
never
> >> > done anything radical at the 'front end' because the market won't
stand
> >> > for it. (In fact Microsoft can barely be counted as being an
innovator)
> >>
> >> The "Blue Screen of Death" does not count as innovative? Damn, you're
> >hard
> >> to please...
> >>
>
> The history of computing can be documented by things that M$ didn't
invent.

I'm not a computer junkie, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a product
that MS sells that they DID invent.

>
> >I understand that the vast majority of MS's R&D goes for reverse
engineering
> >competing products.
>
> And if that doesn't work, buy the competition.

Of course, MS is downright hysterical about people reverse engineering THEIR
products.

[Matt Barrow]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 May 2005 at 18:17:51 in message
> >, Paul Sengupta
> > wrote:
> >"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> And, is global warming really a bad thing? 2/3rd of the earth is
largely
> >> uninhabitable due to COLD.
> >
> >Isn't that more down to the fact that it's wet? :-)
> >
> >Unfortunately for the places where humans live at the moment, it
> >just means different - more storms, more floods, more droughts,
> >etc. With regard to here in the UK, it seems that the weather used
> >to be best ("summer" weather) in July and August. Now it seems that
> >the best weather here is in May and June, with July, August and
> >September being quite wet, with frequent thunderstorms. Sort of thing
> >you see in sub-tropical areas! Various sub-tropical creatures which
> >could previously only be found in the far south of the country are
> >starting to be found further north.
> >
> >This cannot be totally blamed on man-made warming...indeed the
> >earth's temperature closely follows solar activity if I remember
> >correctly. But in support of the man made change, records were
> >studied from the past 300 years or so. it shows a strong correlation
> >between solar activity and average earth temperatures - the two went
> >up and down together...until the Industrial Revolution, when the two
> >lines started diverging in the same proportion to the estimated global
> >production of man-made carbon dioxide.
> >
> Can you please provide references for the source of this information? I
> am very interested. The industrial revolution started around the 1740s
> I think but perhaps you have a later starting point?

Look at some of the research they've done with ice core samples and tree
rings.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
> I'm not a computer junkie, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a product
> that MS sells that they DID invent.

Clippy? Microsoft BoB?

Oh, SELLS, not sold. Even Microsoft have got the clue that Clippy and
BoB were bad ideas!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"