Al Gore's Private Jet [Archive]

Robert M. Gary

April 5th 07, 07:22 PM

On Apr 5, 10:54 am, A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:08 am, "ve5jl" > wrote:
> >> Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's private
> >> jet?
>
> >> I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.
>
> >> Thanks in advance
>
> >> VE5JL.
>
> > Gee I wonder how much "global warming" gases he would save if he used
> > an empty airline seat instead. Probably one of the reasons he refused
> > to take the pledge to not produce more green house gases than the
> > average American. This guy has found a profitible industry in global
> > warming and is milking it for all he can get out of it.
>
> > -Robert
>
> Umm.. Al flies commercial when he can, and when he can't,
> charters jets and offsets the use of those by buying carbon credits.
> Info for that is at his blog and athttp://digg.com/politics/Al_Gore_s_Inconvenient_Truth.
>
> BL.
> - --
> Brad Littlejohn | Email:
> Unix Systems Administrator, |
> Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
> PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFGFTfsyBkZmuMZ8L8RAoetAKDHVgSnY4tNAQE0FsQqRr AXVFZVoQCgzrHY
> 1b0agD0IX4Bw4VDU0PPttqI=
> =/dmz
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE------ Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh, good he buys carbon credits. It also looks like he could us to
lose a few pounds but I know dieting can be very difficult. He could
probably buy some calerie credits from people living in Africa. They
could reduce what they eat and he could lose the weight.

-Robert

Ross

April 5th 07, 08:20 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:08 am, "ve5jl" > wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's private
>>jet?
>>
>>I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>>
>>VE5JL.
>
>
> Gee I wonder how much "global warming" gases he would save if he used
> an empty airline seat instead. Probably one of the reasons he refused
> to take the pledge to not produce more green house gases than the
> average American. This guy has found a profitible industry in global
> warming and is milking it for all he can get out of it.
>
> -Robert
>

Check this out on Gore
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Darkwing

April 5th 07, 10:36 PM

"Walt" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 5, 11:20 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 8:08 am, "ve5jl" > wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's
>> > private
>> > jet?
>>
>> > I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.
>>
>> > Thanks in advance
>>
>> > VE5JL.
>>
>> Gee I wonder how much "global warming" gases he would save if he used
>> an empty airline seat instead. Probably one of the reasons he refused
>> to take the pledge to not produce more green house gases than the
>> average American. This guy has found a profitible industry in global
>> warming and is milking it for all he can get out of it.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> Hey, he buys Carbon Credits so he can pollute, guilt-free, all he
> wants.
>
> :>)

Carbon Credits = BULL****!

----------------------------------
DW

Aluckyguess

April 5th 07, 10:37 PM

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Robert M. Gary" >
>
>> Probably one of the reasons he refused
>>to take the pledge to not produce more green house gases than the
>>average American.
>
> Hell, I read a couple of weeks ago that the electric bill at his residence
> was somewhere around $35K, last year.

Thats a lot. I had a machine shop with 21 cnc machines and 41 people and I
thought my electric bill was high @ $3500.00 a month.
>
> He's as much of a hypocrite as those "activists" that drive their SUV to
> an anti war protest and chant "No Blood fo Oil".
>
> Remember:
> In political speak, "We must do something" means "YOU must do something"
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBRhV5SpMoscYxZNI5AQEScAP8D4/+O2E+QKOlJZ/nLhyYnT+J6+VhYju3
> 4fPAwUdCj77cO5MT1XcBIrfQ73bZKo7XZWqnOekRLGK37NnPWT zFA2dEfjDpXImR
> u8+XnxXsxZYUGygLROZLnYmDUdgFH7MSdlB8N4kKUp5Y7CzJlE IN8ZFE1qQvZ/Bw
> m0FWPY58sbk=
> =Z3mk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Jose

April 5th 07, 10:41 PM

> Carbon Credits = BULL****!

How so?

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

Steven P. McNicoll

April 5th 07, 10:47 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Umm.. Al flies commercial when he can, and when he can't,
> charters jets and offsets the use of those by buying carbon credits.
> Info for that is at his blog and at
> http://digg.com/politics/Al_Gore_s_Inconvenient_Truth .
>

Who does he buy the carbon credits from?

A Guy Called Tyketto

April 5th 07, 11:38 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> Umm.. Al flies commercial when he can, and when he can't,
>> charters jets and offsets the use of those by buying carbon credits.
>> Info for that is at his blog and at
>> http://digg.com/politics/Al_Gore_s_Inconvenient_Truth .
>>
>
> Who does he buy the carbon credits from?

TerraPass. http://www.terrapass.com .

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGFXpdyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsJ1AKC5HpUNCMLhM1w0Tytmaj jVIq/xUgCgmXIF
RJHu2gyzWYGwKRDlpzVM3r0=
=97kp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto

April 5th 07, 11:49 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:08 am, "ve5jl" > wrote:
>> Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's private
>> jet?
>>
>> I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> VE5JL.
>
> Gee I wonder how much "global warming" gases he would save if he used
> an empty airline seat instead. Probably one of the reasons he refused
> to take the pledge to not produce more green house gases than the
> average American. This guy has found a profitible industry in global
> warming and is milking it for all he can get out of it.
>
> -Robert

I would have thought the same as you 2 years ago, then really
thought about it and how it is theoretically possible. Then, I found
this:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/21/113953/985

This and other things have seriously changed my mind about it.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind; that isn't my call. But
you have to admit: Gen. Aviation isn't really helping the cause. We're
flying around planes that can seat no more than 3 - 5 people, and
adding CO2 to the air just as much as those driving... Yet you're only
roasting Gore. We should look at ourselves first before going after
someone else..

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGFXz6yBkZmuMZ8L8RAr16AJ9R2+pS4UOjZwy0uI1rva tn34lCIwCg18/E
XSz/CxqC+aHfN7nVdOhsNPk=
=677G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Steven P. McNicoll

April 5th 07, 11:50 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
et...
>
> TerraPass. http://www.terrapass.com .
>

That's quite a scam. How much of TerraPass does Gore own?

A Guy Called Tyketto

April 6th 07, 12:09 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> TerraPass. http://www.terrapass.com .
>>
>
> That's quite a scam. How much of TerraPass does Gore own?

Good question. I don't know, but if they're partnered up with
Expedia, DriveNeutral, and look pretty well self solvent.
Treehugger.com has a lot of info about them.

Also, Expedia is selling carbon offsets as well.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGFYGNyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvPLAJ4vvqyIkKFW2NztKE64es 8GYAqThQCaAvBh
ncwQhah7/aqkzaxobPDXDOg=
=s3yA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 12:13 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Good question. I don't know, but if they're partnered up with
> Expedia, DriveNeutral, and look pretty well self solvent.
> Treehugger.com has a lot of info about them.
>
> Also, Expedia is selling carbon offsets as well.
>

I think I'll start selling them too.

[email protected]

April 6th 07, 12:32 AM

On Apr 5, 12:20 pm, Ross > wrote:
>
> Check this out on Gore http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Nice Snopes article about the Gore's 10,000 sqft house and the 4000
sqft house at the Bush's Crawford "ranch", with the ground-water heat
pump system (very nifty indeed if you can sink a reasonable-depth well
next to your house... I'm jealous).

Question, though. Do you really think the President, the First Lady,
the President's security detail, the First Lady's security detail, the
President's staff, the First Lady's staff, *and* Barney would all fit
in a 4000 sqft house, all at the same time during the workday?

Nope, they don't. The Bushes actually have a small compound at
Crawford, with one or two extra houses, staff trailers, etc., etc.
All proper and fitting for the POTUS, but hardly just the modest 4000
sqft ranch house described in the Snopes article. :-)

The Gore's, on the other hand, really do fit themselves, their
security (they don't use much) and their respective staff inside their
one house. A big-ass house, to be sure!

The Bush's Crawford compound (just so this post is not *completely*
aviation free, there are multiple Marine One shots here):
http://cryptome.org/bush-ranch.htm

The Gore's Tennessee residence:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php?Number=543435

-Jay-

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 12:38 AM

wrote:
> On Apr 5, 12:20 pm, Ross > wrote:
>> Check this out on Gore http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
>
> Nice Snopes article about the Gore's 10,000 sqft house and the 4000
> sqft house at the Bush's Crawford "ranch", with the ground-water heat
> pump system (very nifty indeed if you can sink a reasonable-depth well
> next to your house... I'm jealous).
>
> Question, though. Do you really think the President, the First Lady,
> the President's security detail, the First Lady's security detail, the
> President's staff, the First Lady's staff, *and* Barney would all fit
> in a 4000 sqft house, all at the same time during the workday?
>
> Nope, they don't. The Bushes actually have a small compound at
> Crawford, with one or two extra houses, staff trailers, etc., etc.
> All proper and fitting for the POTUS, but hardly just the modest 4000
> sqft ranch house described in the Snopes article. :-)
>
> The Gore's, on the other hand, really do fit themselves, their
> security (they don't use much) and their respective staff inside their
> one house. A big-ass house, to be sure!

The real issue though isn't the size of the house, it is the hypocrisy
that Gore represents and that Bush does not. Gore is the one crying
wolf and telling us how we have to change our lifestyle in order to
"save the world" all while doing completely the opposite personally. I
haven't heard Bush making such claims.

Matt

[email protected]

April 6th 07, 01:51 AM

On Apr 5, 4:49 pm, A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:08 am, "ve5jl" > wrote:
> >> Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's private
> >> jet?
>
> >> I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.
>
> >> Thanks in advance
>
> >> VE5JL.
>
> > Gee I wonder how much "global warming" gases he would save if he used
> > an empty airline seat instead. Probably one of the reasons he refused
> > to take the pledge to not produce more green house gases than the
> > average American. This guy has found a profitible industry in global
> > warming and is milking it for all he can get out of it.
>
> > -Robert
>
> I would have thought the same as you 2 years ago, then really
> thought about it and how it is theoretically possible. Then, I found
> this:
>
> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/21/113953/985
>
> This and other things have seriously changed my mind about it.
>
> I'm not trying to change anyone's mind; that isn't my call. But
> you have to admit: Gen. Aviation isn't really helping the cause. We're
> flying around planes that can seat no more than 3 - 5 people, and
> adding CO2 to the air just as much as those driving... Yet you're only
> roasting Gore. We should look at ourselves first before going after
> someone else..
>
> BL.
> - --
> Brad Littlejohn | Email:
> Unix Systems Administrator, |
> Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
> PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFGFXz6yBkZmuMZ8L8RAr16AJ9R2+pS4UOjZwy0uI1rva tn34lCIwCg18/E
> XSz/CxqC+aHfN7nVdOhsNPk=
> =677G
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE------ Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You mean the CO2 that is a vital nutrient to plant life and key to
photosynthesis of food for those same plants? The CO2 that is
currently at 380ppm but has been at 3000ppm for most of the history of
life on the planet? The same CO2 that at 1000ppm stimulates plants to
grow 50% faster than they do at 380ppm? The same CO2 that is a minor
greenhouse gas when compared with water vapor, which is the dominant
greenhouse gas and absorber of infra-red radiation? The same CO2 that
you emit every time you exhale? The same CO2 that is the primary
source of carbon for carbon based lifeforms on this planet? The same
CO2 that has to be in excess of 5000ppm to pose a respiritory problem
for animals and humans?

You talk about CO2 like it is some form of pollution, rather than a
key component of life on this planet. Hmmm, maybe in addition to
restricting CO2 emissions, we should restriction H20 vapor emissions,
the biggest greenhouse gas. You can buy Hydrogen offset credits at my
website http:\\someonebuymeadrink.com

Aluckyguess

April 6th 07, 02:05 AM

The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax. Even if it was true
there is nothing you can do about it. Oil will run out way before we
overheat.
People like Gore will make a living off the hoax.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 03:11 AM

On 5 Apr 2007 17:51:59 -0700, wrote in
. com>:

>The CO2 that is
>currently at 380ppm but has been at 3000ppm for most of the history of
>life on the planet?

During the 3.5 billion years of Earth's existence its atmosphere did
not contain appreciable amounts of life sustaining oxygen until ~500
million years ago. So I don't see the relevance of that statement.

Regardless, it would seem that the climate is warming now, and it
would behoove us ALL to do what we can to reduce the speed with which
that is occurring.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 03:13 AM

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
>:

>The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.

You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 03:35 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Regardless, it would seem that the climate is warming now, and it
> would behoove us ALL to do what we can to reduce the speed with which
> that is occurring.
>

Why?

[email protected]

April 6th 07, 04:24 AM

On Apr 5, 8:11 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2007 17:51:59 -0700, wrote in
> . com>:
>
> >The CO2 that is
> >currently at 380ppm but has been at 3000ppm for most of the history of
> >life on the planet?
>
> During the 3.5 billion years of Earth's existence its atmosphere did
> not contain appreciable amounts of life sustaining oxygen until ~500
> million years ago. So I don't see the relevance of that statement.
>
> Regardless, it would seem that the climate is warming now, and it
> would behoove us ALL to do what we can to reduce the speed with which
> that is occurring.

Funny how the "warming" (0.5 degrees C on average at the surface, but
no measureable change at higher altitudes) seems to be tracking the
average solar output...

CO2 levels have been much higher for most of the history of life, see
this:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Here are some videos you should watch in addition to "Inconvenient
Lie"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL4s5qdvaug

CBC documentary on global warming (5 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro

[email protected]

April 6th 07, 04:35 AM

Here is a nice slide show for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NLXyEBFWwA

Orval Fairbairn

April 6th 07, 04:54 AM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Carbon Credits = BULL****!
>
> How so?
>
> Jose

It's about the same as going to confession, confessing your sins, then
paying a "donation" to the Church. It allows one to sin as much as he
wants, as long as he donates to the "franchise."

BTW, IIRC, Al Gore is one of the directord of the organization
collecting the "carbon tax."

Dare we say "scam"?

Orval Fairbairn

April 6th 07, 04:57 AM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
> >:
>
> >The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>
> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 06:21 AM

> This and other things have seriously changed my mind about it.
>
> I'm not trying to change anyone's mind; that isn't my call. But
> you have to admit: Gen. Aviation isn't really helping the cause. We're
> flying around planes that can seat no more than 3 - 5 people, and
> adding CO2 to the air just as much as those driving... Yet you're only
> roasting Gore. We should look at ourselves first before going after
> someone else..

What do you do, hold your breath? What is really interesting to me is
how the global warming crowd has explained the unusually cold winters
(global warming must be melting ice caps). Now that we know that Mars
is experiencing the same global warming I'm *REALLY* excited to hear
what the official story is of how we caused that too!!!!

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 06:24 AM

On Apr 5, 7:11 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2007 17:51:59 -0700, wrote in
> . com>:
>
> >The CO2 that is
> >currently at 380ppm but has been at 3000ppm for most of the history of
> >life on the planet?
>
> During the 3.5 billion years of Earth's existence its atmosphere did
> not contain appreciable amounts of life sustaining oxygen until ~500
> million years ago. So I don't see the relevance of that statement.
>
> Regardless, it would seem that the climate is warming now, and it
> would behoove us ALL to do what we can to reduce the speed with which
> that is occurring.

The problem is, to reduce enough green house gases to effect the temp
of the earth we'd have to cover 50% of the oceans with a material that
would prevent moisture from getting into the atmosphere. Besides, why
do I care that the earth doesn't (and never has) maintained a
continuous temperature? Who am I to tell the earth what it is or is
not suppose to do?

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 06:27 AM

On Apr 5, 7:13 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
> >:
>
> >The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>
> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

Pretty cool. I love how he's been responding to the scientists who
claim he misquoted them in the movie. In essence, he said he isn't
smart enough to understand the actual specifics of climate change but
he believes he got the essence of the meaning across. You got to hand
it to him, he's taken himself from a totally washed up has-been to
front page news with this industry. I"m still waiting to hear him tell
us how we are also causing the global warming that is happening on
Mars.

-Robert

[email protected]

April 6th 07, 07:23 AM

On Apr 5, 4:38 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> The real issue though isn't the size of the house, it is the hypocrisy
> that Gore represents and that Bush does not. Gore is the one crying
> wolf and telling us how we have to change our lifestyle in order to
> "save the world" all while doing completely the opposite personally. I
> haven't heard Bush making such claims.

Well Matt, you're quite incorrect. Please get yourself informed.

Gore isn't telling you to go live in a cave.

He's telling you that all of us need to take responsibility for the
amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. That's all. It's
just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.

If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
doing.

Get it? Got it? Good. Aviation-free, sorry about that.

-Jay-

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 11:38 AM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>>
>> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?
>
>I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
>late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.

Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 11:47 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.
>

I've heard nobody trying to refute that fact. What's being refuted is the
claim that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

Jon Kraus

April 6th 07, 12:01 PM

What a load of unsubstantiated crap by another sky-is-falling Chicken
Little type. Your scare tactics are typical of the far-left but any
knowledgeable person knows the truth.

Were you also screaming about the coming Ice Age back in the 70's? My
guess is you weren't even born yet.

Jon

> If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
> Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
> to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
> that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.
>
> If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
> now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
> doing.
>

kontiki

April 6th 07, 01:25 PM

Jon Kraus wrote:

> What a load of unsubstantiated crap by another sky-is-falling Chicken
> Little type. Your scare tactics are typical of the far-left but any
> knowledgeable person knows the truth.
>
> Were you also screaming about the coming Ice Age back in the 70's? My
> guess is you weren't even born yet.
>
> Jon

Congress will just pass a law against global warming hahahhhaaa...
that'll stop it. hehe

The fact is, that all things in the universe grow old and die.
Unless you can control the population (which you can't) and the
sun (which you can't) you will only bankrupt the American
economy in the end trying to change the world... an impossibility.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 01:28 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.
>

and evisence indicates the planet Mars is warming also.

What amazes me is that significant numbers of people in this
country believe that congress can legislatively control the
climate of the planet or the output of the sun.

It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.

Don Tabor

April 6th 07, 01:43 PM

On 5 Apr 2007 23:23:08 -0700, wrote:

> It's
>just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
>Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
>to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
>that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.

Read the IPCC working group 1 technical summary available at
Junkscience.com The Summary for Policy Makers was written by
bureaucrats and does not reflect the document produced by the
scientists.

The worst case sea level rise for the next 100 years is 17 inches. The
worst case over thousands of years is about 40 inches. We can build a
four foot levee pretty reliably of we need to.

More than that would require melting of the Greenland Central Ice
Sheet (20ft) and the Antarctic Ice Sheets (200 ft) but those would
require temperature rises of about 70 degrees F and no model predicts
more than 11 degrees. Even at those temperatures, it would take
thousands of years to melt the Ice Sheets.

What we really can expect over the next few hundred years is a return
to the temperatures we experienced in the Medieval Warm Period from
about 1000 AD to 1400 AD, otherwise known as the Renaissance and the
Age of Discovery, during which long growing seasons and mild winters
allowed man to prosper and build great civilizations.

Oh, the horror.

Don

Don Tabor

April 6th 07, 01:46 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>>
>> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?
>
>I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
>late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.

There's a much better one available from the BBC Channel 4 available
on YouTube and Google Video's

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

It sets the record straight on a lot of Gore's claims

Don

kontiki

April 6th 07, 01:51 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Regardless, it would seem that the climate is warming now, and it
> would behoove us ALL to do what we can to reduce the speed with which
> that is occurring.
>

Okay, so what do you propose? That we all pay a 'carbon tax' ?
How is giving government even more of our hard earned money gonna
change the climate of the earth? What has government done that makes
you believe it would do any good?

Ya want government to legistlate and control our lives in an attempt
somehow control the temperature of the earth? What about other
countries... are we going to attack and conquer them and MAKE them
stop producing babies?

The US population is small compared to the rest of the world,
and our economy is mature compared to theirs which is growing rapidly.

Stop being so anal and enjoy your life... everyone is gonna die
eventually.

Jose

April 6th 07, 02:54 PM

> It's about the same as going to confession, confessing your sins, then
> paying a "donation" to the Church. It allows one to sin as much as he
> wants, as long as he donates to the "franchise."

No, it's different in several important ways.

1: There is no heaven or hell.

2: There are no other sinners on the recieving end who are prevented or
dissuaded from sinning by dint of getting the donation. All the money
is simply collected by the church.

3: "Sins" do not pollute and build up in the environment, at least not
in the same way as material pollution.

The point of carbon credits is that the person receiving the credit
(money) will use it to modernize their (already polluting) system so it
pollutes less, enough to offset the gains elsewhere. All human (and
animal, for that matter) activities pollute, and it's more efficient to
reduce the total at some places than others. This system reduces the
total pollution.

At least that's the idea, and it's sound. Whether in exeution it works
out that way is another question, one which I have not researched.

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

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 03:00 PM

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it's different in several important ways.
>
> 1: There is no heaven or hell.
>

Prove it.

Then prove that human activity is the primary driver in global warming.

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 03:12 PM

On Apr 6, 5:51 am, kontiki > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > Regardless, it would seem that the climate is warming now, and it
> > would behoove us ALL to do what we can to reduce the speed with which
> > that is occurring.
>
> Okay, so what do you propose? That we all pay a 'carbon tax' ?
> How is giving government even more of our hard earned money gonna
> change the climate of the earth? What has government done that makes
> you believe it would do any good?
>
> Ya want government to legistlate and control our lives in an attempt
> somehow control the temperature of the earth? What about other
> countries... are we going to attack and conquer them and MAKE them
> stop producing babies?

No, I think the ideas is that the U.S. is suppose to 1) pay the
"carbon tax" for the rest of the world as well and 2) return to the
Amish way of life. The agenda behind global warming is quiet clear. 1)
We are suppose to feel ashamed that we have the world's strongest
economy and need to distribute (ie give) our money to the rest of the
world and 2) We need *MUCH* bigger gov't to take care of us. If you
ever had any doubts, look at what the world economic summits have done
with regard to China and India's pollution. NOTHING. The global
warming groups (U.S. and international) have a very anti-American
agenda. It makes me sick to watch guys like Gore and Clinton go around
the world and talk about how terrible the U.S. is. If they're going to
do that, they can just stay and not come back!

-Robert

Jose

April 6th 07, 03:16 PM

>>1: There is no heaven or hell.
> Prove it.

I could, but then I'd have to kill you. :)

> Then prove that human activity is the primary driver in global warming.

I never made that claim. I don't dispute it, but I don't make it either.

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

ManhattanMan

April 6th 07, 03:23 PM

kontiki wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.

Now THAT I will 100% agree with, all other arguments in this thread aside!!!

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 03:30 PM

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>
> It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.
>

Which demonstrates that a majority of voters prefer losers as leaders.

601XL Builder

April 6th 07, 03:48 PM

wrote:
> On Apr 5, 4:38 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> The real issue though isn't the size of the house, it is the hypocrisy
>> that Gore represents and that Bush does not. Gore is the one crying
>> wolf and telling us how we have to change our lifestyle in order to
>> "save the world" all while doing completely the opposite personally. I
>> haven't heard Bush making such claims.
>
> Well Matt, you're quite incorrect. Please get yourself informed.
>
> Gore isn't telling you to go live in a cave.
>
> He's telling you that all of us need to take responsibility for the
> amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. That's all. It's
> just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
> Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
> to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
> that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.
>
> If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
> now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
> doing.
>
> Get it? Got it? Good. Aviation-free, sorry about that.
>
> -Jay-
>

The earth's climate, land mass and atmosphere has changed continuously
since the earth was formed. Why the hell does anyone thing it should
become static now that we are here?

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 04:00 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No, it's different in several important ways.
>>
>> 1: There is no heaven or hell.
>>
>
> Prove it.
>
> Then prove that human activity is the primary driver in global warming.
>
>

Neither can be proven. The difference is that most religion's admit
that you must have faith, whereas the global warming zealots claim to
have proof when they don't.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 04:03 PM

wrote:
> On Apr 5, 4:38 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> The real issue though isn't the size of the house, it is the hypocrisy
>> that Gore represents and that Bush does not. Gore is the one crying
>> wolf and telling us how we have to change our lifestyle in order to
>> "save the world" all while doing completely the opposite personally. I
>> haven't heard Bush making such claims.
>
> Well Matt, you're quite incorrect. Please get yourself informed.
>
> Gore isn't telling you to go live in a cave.
>
> He's telling you that all of us need to take responsibility for the
> amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. That's all. It's
> just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
> Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
> to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
> that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.

And when he gets his CO2 generation down to within a factor of 2 of
mine, then I'll believe that he really believes what he is saying.
Until then, I'll treat it as the moneymaking (for Gore and his cohorts)
scam that it is.

> If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
> now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
> doing.
>
> Get it? Got it? Good. Aviation-free, sorry about that.

There is nothing to get. I don't believe scams, especially scams from
politicians. And global warming as described by Gore and Company is
nothing but a scam of major proportion.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 04:05 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.
>>
>
> Which demonstrates that a majority of voters prefer losers as leaders.
>
>

Yes, that is the truly sad part. Then again, I don't think real winners
would ever run for political office in this country, so we'll never have
that as a ballot option. The best we can do is vote for the least
harmful loser.

Matt

birdog

April 6th 07, 04:14 PM

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Walt" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Apr 5, 11:20 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>> On Apr 5, 8:08 am, "ve5jl" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's
>>> > private
>>> > jet?
>>>
>>> > I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.
>>>
>>> > Thanks in advance
>>>
>>> > VE5JL.
>>>
>>> Gee I wonder how much "global warming" gases he would save if he used
>>> an empty airline seat instead. Probably one of the reasons he refused
>>> to take the pledge to not produce more green house gases than the
>>> average American. This guy has found a profitible industry in global
>>> warming and is milking it for all he can get out of it.
>>>
>>> -Robert
>>
>> Hey, he buys Carbon Credits so he can pollute, guilt-free, all he
>> wants.
>>
>> :>)
>
>
> Carbon Credits = BULL****!
>
> ----------------------------------
> DW

Yeah. Carbon credits. Let me tell you a true story about carbon credits.

Over the last several years a friend of mine has purchased over 1000 acres
in South Dakota. His latest purchase was planted with trees and grasses last
spring, financed by the state of SD. Due to last years drought, most was
lost. The state will only plant once, after which he will have to foot the
bill himself, to the tune of about $40,000.

In a moment of inspiration, his lawyer suggested that he advertise on the
web that he is planting for invironmental reasons and for wildlife habitant
(actually, it's a land investment and for pheasant hunting). The idea is to
sell carbon credits to the nit-wits in Hollywood and like eco-nuts.

Got a grass strip that needs re-seeding?

There are people out there laying awake at night trying to figure out how to
scam these morons.

birdog

April 6th 07, 04:18 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 5:51 am, kontiki > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> > Regardless, it would seem that the climate is warming now, and it
>> > would behoove us ALL to do what we can to reduce the speed with which
>> > that is occurring.
>>
>> Okay, so what do you propose? That we all pay a 'carbon tax' ?
>> How is giving government even more of our hard earned money gonna
>> change the climate of the earth? What has government done that makes
>> you believe it would do any good?
>>
>> Ya want government to legistlate and control our lives in an attempt
>> somehow control the temperature of the earth? What about other
>> countries... are we going to attack and conquer them and MAKE them
>> stop producing babies?
>
> No, I think the ideas is that the U.S. is suppose to 1) pay the
> "carbon tax" for the rest of the world as well and 2) return to the
> Amish way of life. The agenda behind global warming is quiet clear. 1)
> We are suppose to feel ashamed that we have the world's strongest
> economy and need to distribute (ie give) our money to the rest of the
> world and 2) We need *MUCH* bigger gov't to take care of us. If you
> ever had any doubts, look at what the world economic summits have done
> with regard to China and India's pollution. NOTHING. The global
> warming groups (U.S. and international) have a very anti-American
> agenda. It makes me sick to watch guys like Gore and Clinton go around
> the world and talk about how terrible the U.S. is. If they're going to
> do that, they can just stay and not come back!
>
> -Robert

It is predicted that by the end of '07, China and India will exceed the US
in carbon emissions. Stupidity is rampant!

[email protected]

April 6th 07, 04:20 PM

On Apr 6, 4:38 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >In article >,
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
> >> >:
>
> >> >The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>
> >> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?
>
> >I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
> >late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.
>
> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.

The current global temperature is lower than during the medieval warm
period. We are still trending up from the little ice age. Warming
started 150 years ago, long before man began producing any significant
CO2.

The contention that man-made CO2 drives the global climate is
fallacious.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 04:33 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:47:16 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
k.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
>> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
>> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.
>>
>
>I've heard nobody trying to refute that fact. What's being refuted is the
>claim that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.
>

It's good to see that we agree on the fundamental premise. Of course
the human-cause aspect of the issue is only inferred, so it is subject
to interpretation.

Despite that, it seems only prudent to do what we can to retard the
rate of climate change for our own good. And in the process, if we
are able to reduce our dependence on oil and advance the trend toward
renewable energy, which is inevitable, we advance technological
development in a healthier direction, in my opinion.

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 04:38 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:47:16 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> k.net>:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
>>> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
>>> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.
>>>
>> I've heard nobody trying to refute that fact. What's being refuted is the
>> claim that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.
>>
>
> It's good to see that we agree on the fundamental premise. Of course
> the human-cause aspect of the issue is only inferred, so it is subject
> to interpretation.
>
> Despite that, it seems only prudent to do what we can to retard the
> rate of climate change for our own good. And in the process, if we
> are able to reduce our dependence on oil and advance the trend toward
> renewable energy, which is inevitable, we advance technological
> development in a healthier direction, in my opinion.

How do we know that warmer isn't in fact better? Maybe it would be
better if we tried to accelerate the warming? :-)

Matt

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 04:40 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:51:05 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Stop being so anal and enjoy your life... everyone is gonna die
>eventually.

Right. Global climate change is likely only to have a limited impact
on ME personally, as the bulk of my life is behind me. To hell with
the future generations. So what if they inherit the consequences of
our generation's rush to combust the products of hundreds of millions
or years of life on our planet; it won't affect me today. Brilliant!
Why didn't I think of that? :-(

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 04:40 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You mean the CO2 that is a vital nutrient to plant life and key to
> photosynthesis of food for those same plants? The CO2 that is
> currently at 380ppm but has been at 3000ppm for most of the history of
> life on the planet? The same CO2 that at 1000ppm stimulates plants to
> grow 50% faster than they do at 380ppm? The same CO2 that is a minor
> greenhouse gas when compared with water vapor, which is the dominant
> greenhouse gas and absorber of infra-red radiation? The same CO2 that
> you emit every time you exhale? The same CO2 that is the primary
> source of carbon for carbon based lifeforms on this planet? The same
> CO2 that has to be in excess of 5000ppm to pose a respiritory problem
> for animals and humans?
>
> You talk about CO2 like it is some form of pollution, rather than a
> key component of life on this planet.

Not to mention that core sample data indicates that temperture rise PRECEEDS
corresponding CO2 rise by several hundred years...

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 04:42 PM

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
>> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
>> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.
>>
>
> and evisence indicates the planet Mars is warming also.
>
> What amazes me is that significant numbers of people in this
> country believe that congress can legislatively control the
> climate of the planet or the output of the sun.
>
> It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.

Sorta reminds me of Bastiat's tale of the candlemakers petition against the
Sun.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 04:44 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 5, 7:13 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>>
>> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?
>
> Pretty cool. I love how he's been responding to the scientists who
> claim he misquoted them in the movie. In essence, he said he isn't
> smart enough to understand the actual specifics of climate change but
> he believes he got the essence of the meaning across. You got to hand
> it to him, he's taken himself from a totally washed up has-been to
> front page news with this industry. I"m still waiting to hear him tell
> us how we are also causing the global warming that is happening on
> Mars.
>

Interview with Gore that appeared (May 2006) in a publication called Grist:

Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about
global warming and
get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the
right mix?

Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is.
In the United States
of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the
Category 5 denial is an
enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in
solutions if they don't
think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is
appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how
dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve
this
crisis.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 04:45 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:00:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
k.net>:

>
>> 1: There is no heaven or hell.
>>
>
>Prove it.

It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.

How about you prove heaven or hell exists as other than a
self-delusional state of mind instead?

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 04:45 PM

On Apr 6, 3:38 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >In article >,
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
> >> >:
>
> >> >The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>
> >> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?
>
> >I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
> >late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.
>
> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.

Yes the climate is warming, but what do we have to do with it? How are
we suppose to change the cycles of temps, and who are we to tell the
planet to maintain an constant temp? BTW: Are we talking about the
global warming on Earth or Mars at the moment?

-Robert

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 04:47 PM

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> kontiki wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.
>
> Now THAT I will 100% agree with, all other arguments in this thread
> aside!!!

While I agree with both of you, you should take a look at the rest of the
world.

Losers? Understatement of the millenium.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 04:48 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:30:20 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It demonstrates what losers this country has for leaders.
>>
>
>Which demonstrates that a majority of voters prefer losers as leaders.
>

Actually, it demonstrates that the majority of voters are easily
fooled, and a significant number of voters have a vested interest in
seeing that their leaders advance their personal interests at the
expense of the good of the nation, IMO.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 04:51 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:48:51 -0500, 601XL Builder
<wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in
>:

>Why the hell does anyone thing it should
>become static now that we are here?

Perhaps the issue is more about mediating that change so that its
destructive potential is mitigated.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 04:54 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's good to see that we agree on the fundamental premise. Of course
> the human-cause aspect of the issue is only inferred, so it is subject
> to interpretation.
>
> Despite that, it seems only prudent to do what we can to retard the
> rate of climate change for our own good. And in the process, if we
> are able to reduce our dependence on oil and advance the trend toward
> renewable energy, which is inevitable, we advance technological
> development in a healthier direction, in my opinion.
>

Why does that seem prudent to you? How do you know we wouldn't be better
off if temperatures were a bit warmer?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 04:56 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.
>

Likewise.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 04:58 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 3:38 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote
>> >> in
>> >> >:
>>
>> >> >The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>>
>> >> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?
>>
>> >I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
>> >late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.
>>
>> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
>> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
>> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.
>
> Yes the climate is warming, but what do we have to do with it? How are
> we suppose to change the cycles of temps, and who are we to tell the
> planet to maintain an constant temp? BTW: Are we talking about the
> global warming on Earth or Mars at the moment?
>
As one wise sage said several years ago, "If it wasn't for Global warming,
we'd never have gotten out of the Ice Ages!"

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 05:01 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps the issue is more about mediating that change so that its
> destructive potential is mitigated.
>

Why do you assume that change will have a net destructive effect?

Jose

April 6th 07, 05:03 PM

> The air was too dirty to support them. We solved that problem with better technology, not by returning to a 17th century lifestyle. Modern cities are full of beautiful, flourishing trees. That is the model for solving global warming, too, if it can be solved.

That's part of the rationale for carbon credits. (Again, I'm not
claiming the implementation works, just what the theory is, AFAIK).
Someone flies a relatively clean jet (or fires up a relatively clean
refinery), and pays money to those who have relatively dirty ones. They
the money and use it to clean the dirty ones up.

The idea is that it's less expensive to improve the dirty ones than to
get the same reduction in the ones that are already clean.

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

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 05:04 PM

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is predicted that by the end of '07, China and India will exceed the US
> in carbon emissions. Stupidity is rampant!
The same China that's building something like two coal burning plants (no,
not the modern high-tech ones) each week?

Kind of reminds me of how the environuts viewed the old Soviet Union, even
after we all found what an environmental disaster it was.

[email protected]

April 6th 07, 05:10 PM

On Apr 6, 10:04 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "birdog" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > It is predicted that by the end of '07, China and India will exceed the US
> > in carbon emissions. Stupidity is rampant!
>
> The same China that's building something like two coal burning plants (no,
> not the modern high-tech ones) each week?
>
> Kind of reminds me of how the environuts viewed the old Soviet Union, even
> after we all found what an environmental disaster it was.

Why do you think that multi-national corporations are outsourcing
manufacturing jobs to China? No EPA, no OSHA, cheaper labor, no big
health care costs, tax avoidance, etc. etc.

Our politicians are hell-bent on destroying our economy by driving
jobs out. If you want to pollute the world even worse send the
manufacturing to China!!!!! There are no restrictions over there!

Aluckyguess

April 6th 07, 05:14 PM

The planet earth will be here long after were gone. It will fix itself. I
think it would be better to put our efforts into helping homeless Americans,
slow down the influx of illegal aliens and figure a way to get affordable
health care for the middle class. If you get sick you and you're family
loose everything. That would include your plane.
These are things we can do something about. In all honesty Global warming is
nothing but a fraud that many are making millions over. (imho)
Enjoy life now and wish everyone happiness.
Excuse me for my spelling and grammar I am sure there are plenty of
mistakes.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 05:23 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 10:04 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "birdog" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > It is predicted that by the end of '07, China and India will exceed the
>> > US
>> > in carbon emissions. Stupidity is rampant!
>>
>> The same China that's building something like two coal burning plants
>> (no,
>> not the modern high-tech ones) each week?
>>
>> Kind of reminds me of how the environuts viewed the old Soviet Union,
>> even
>> after we all found what an environmental disaster it was.
>
> Why do you think that multi-national corporations are outsourcing
> manufacturing jobs to China? No EPA, no OSHA, cheaper labor, no big
> health care costs, tax avoidance, etc. etc.

They still pay taxes on income derived from another country. In fact,they
pay twice.
>
> Our politicians are hell-bent on destroying our economy by driving
> jobs out.

Which jobs? Seems to me many/most of those jobs made themselves unfeasible
in the US.

> If you want to pollute the world even worse send the
> manufacturing to China!!!!! There are no restrictions over there!

Quite!

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 05:24 PM

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> The planet earth will be here long after were gone. It will fix itself. I
> think it would be better to put our efforts into helping homeless
> Americans,

How about them help themselves?

> slow down the influx of illegal aliens

Yes.

> and figure a way to get affordable health care for the middle class.

Simple: get government out of it.

[email protected]

April 6th 07, 05:26 PM

On Apr 6, 10:23 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 10:04 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> > wrote:
> >> "birdog" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > It is predicted that by the end of '07, China and India will exceed the
> >> > US
> >> > in carbon emissions. Stupidity is rampant!
>
> >> The same China that's building something like two coal burning plants
> >> (no,
> >> not the modern high-tech ones) each week?
>
> >> Kind of reminds me of how the environuts viewed the old Soviet Union,
> >> even
> >> after we all found what an environmental disaster it was.
>
> > Why do you think that multi-national corporations are outsourcing
> > manufacturing jobs to China? No EPA, no OSHA, cheaper labor, no big
> > health care costs, tax avoidance, etc. etc.
>
> They still pay taxes on income derived from another country. In fact,they
> pay twice.
>
>
>
> > Our politicians are hell-bent on destroying our economy by driving
> > jobs out.
>
> Which jobs? Seems to me many/most of those jobs made themselves unfeasible
> in the US.
>
> > If you want to pollute the world even worse send the
> > manufacturing to China!!!!! There are no restrictions over there!
>
> Quite!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, for HP Laserjets alone:
Circuit Board Manufacturing
Electrical Design Engineering
Test Engineering
Final Product Assembly
To name a few...

But hey, we have more jobs flipping burgers than we used to!

C J Campbell[_1_]

April 6th 07, 05:36 PM

On 2007-04-05 19:13:04 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:05:24 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
> >:
>
>> The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>
> You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

Mr. Gore's presentation was shallow and misleading, unfortunately,
presenting theories as fact and grossly understating the pain of
fighting global warming. He could have done a much better job, I think.

Okay, I am willing to forgive him trotting out the story about his son
one more time, even if he contradicts it slightly later on in the
movie. But I cannot swallow his little pile of gold vs. the earth skit.
Come on. It is not a choice between a little pile of gold and the
earth. It is a choice, if Gore is right about global warming, between
jobs, medicine, housing, food, clothing, clean water, and everything
else necessary for life, every luxury that makes life worth living --
it is a choice between all of that and the planet earth.

Gore is not going to win many supporters as long as he presents the
solution as a bunch of environmental aristocrats living in their manor
houses supported by starving peons a la medieval England. Gore, if he
really wants to galvanize the world into action, needs to tell the
truth. Going back to the emissions of 1970 means going to back to a
standard of living of 1970. Do you think Asia would stand for that?
Does he not realize that trying to get the Chinese to go back to what
they had in 1970 just might start a nuclear war? (But then, that might
cure global warming.)

And make no mistake, China is not the fine example of environmentalism
that Gore claimed. Russia has borne the brunt of some serious Chinese
pollution in recent years, and Chinese factories are among the most
polluting on earth.

But even then, global warming was increasing (by Gore's own admission
in the movie) in 1970, so going back to 1970s emissions levels would do
nothing to stop it. We would still have global warming. All the bad
outcomes predicted by Gore in the movie would still come to pass, even
if every measure he proposes was adopted right now.

Personally, I think if global warming is really caused by human
activity as Gore says, then you are looking at some serious
consequences of reducing that activity. Everybody in Asia wants a car.
They are going to be very upset if Al Gore tries to tell them that they
can't have one. The Africans are going to be unhappy if someone tries
to impose a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on them again. These people might
be so unhappy as to do something about it, like cut off all our access
to resources and, if that doesn't work, lob a few missiles our way. Or,
desperate for resources, we might lob a few missiles in their
direction. No matter, the outcome is the same -- everybody dies. And
100% of species go extinct.

CO2 reduction has serious human costs. It means food, medicine,
shelter, clothing, and everything else will be more expensive to
produce and to transport, which means more people will starve to death,
die in plagues, die of exposure, etc. Gore needs to come clean on how
many people his policies, if implemented, will die. If you want to
return CO2 emissions to the pre-20th century, then the population will
have to return to those levels as well, which means half the people of
the world will die for clean air. That is nearly 3 and a half billion
people, putting Al Gore in a class of mass murderer that makes all the
mass murderers of history appear as nothing. Maybe Gore believes that
they will all die anyway if nothing is done, but he should have the
courage to say so. Pardon me for saying so, but it seems to me that all
those billions of people consigned by Mr. Gore to death, poverty and
misery just might resent it. Maybe death, poverty and misery are
inevitable, but I suspect that they might not see it that way.

Gore promotes only CO2 reduction as a solution. Well, billions of
deaths and a world in poverty is the cost of CO2 reduction. He should
tell the inconvenient truth about that. It isn't just giving up SUVs,
or changing to flourescents, or energy efficient windows, and he knows
it. He dates global warming from long before the SUV became popular. He
ignores other possible technologies, even mass planting of
carbon-absorbing trees, air scrubbers, even satellite technology.
Instead, he just wants to force everyone to live like little hobbits,
even if it kills them.

The last UN report on global warming indicated that although the
scientists believe that global warming is human caused, they also
believe that nothing can be done to stop it. It is too late. The ice
caps are going to melt no matter what we do. That last part got left
out of most news reports and was completely ignored by Gore and his
tribe, yet it this report claims to be the consensus view of the
world's scientists. Gore wants to kill 3.5 billion people and have the
survivors living on vegetable gardens in their yards for what? Nothing.
Nada. The ice caps will melt anyway. A third (perhaps more) of the
world's species will still go extinct. Everyone still gets to live in
Hell. It appears that the only thing that the politicians are doing
about it is to see who gets to be the chief devil.

And then again, 'global' warming might be a little misleading. There
are obvious signs of warming all over the solar system. Melting polar
caps on Mars. A second Great Spot on Jupiter. Comets losing mass. Is
that caused by human activity as well? So, if Al Gore is right and gets
his way, we are going to kill 3.5 billion people and reduce the rest to
poverty in a futile effort to prevent global warming. If he is right
and does not get his way, we will have the same outcome. If he is
wrong, then we are simply dependent on the vagaries of the solar
system, which will eventually drive us all to extinction anyway. And
all three possibilities present a serious risk of apocalyptic war. Some
choice, eh?

There was a time, not so long ago, when no trees grew in Seattle. Or
London, either. The air was too dirty to support them. We solved that
problem with better technology, not by returning to a 17th century
lifestyle. Modern cities are full of beautiful, flourishing trees. That
is the model for solving global warming, too, if it can be solved. If
it cannot, then I guess it doesn't much matter what we do.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 05:57 PM

On Apr 6, 9:24 am, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > The planet earth will be here long after were gone. It will fix itself. I
> > think it would be better to put our efforts into helping homeless
> > Americans,
>
> How about them help themselves?
>
> > slow down the influx of illegal aliens
>
> Yes.
>
> > and figure a way to get affordable health care for the middle class.
>
> Simple: get government out of it.

Amen! In the history of the world, when has anything ever become more
efficient, better service, and less money by having the gov't provide
it???? On the other hand, if the goal is to get 10% of people to pay
for the other 90%, then gov't is the only way to make that happen. I'd
love to see someone actually try to bring the IRS up on charges of
extortion. Stop paying your taxes and men with guns WILL show up in
your house in the middle of the night!!!

-Robert

-Robert

601XL Builder

April 6th 07, 06:05 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:48:51 -0500, 601XL Builder
> <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Why the hell does anyone thing it should
>> become static now that we are here?
>
> Perhaps the issue is more about mediating that change so that its
> destructive potential is mitigated.
>

But to do so we are screwing which nature which the environmentalists
have been saying is BAD for the last 50 years or so.

Then there is the whole issue that the warming trend isn't even limited
to Earth and that Mars is experiencing global warming as well.

Montblack

April 6th 07, 06:33 PM

("Richard Riley" wrote)
>>Hey, he buys Carbon Credits so he can pollute, guilt-free, all he wants.

> I've talked to several good looking priests over the years. They could be
> having sex all the time, but they aren't. So if you're married and
> getting some on the side, you can offset it by buying their monogamy
> credits.

Speaking of religion...

(Listen Now or Download)
http://www.am1500.com/podcasts/index.shtml#garage
<Select> Wednesday (4-4-07) 3:00 (hour)

Global Warming and Martin Luther <g>

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the
money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

Montblack
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/business_of_global_warming_fee.html
Business of Global Warming Feels a Lot Like Inquisition
By William F. Buckley

C J Campbell[_1_]

April 6th 07, 06:50 PM

On 2007-04-06 09:57:26 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > said:

>>
>
> Amen! In the history of the world, when has anything ever become more
> efficient, better service, and less money by having the gov't provide
> it????

Um, the autobahn and superhighways? They would not have existed at all
if not for government. Same for the rule of law, national defense, and
many other services provided by governments. Some governments may do
these things better than others, but all you have to do is look at
countries that have gone through periods without functioning
governments, such as Albania, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. Without
government and the rule of law, you have the Taliban. You have
warlords. You have slavery and human misery.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 07:00 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 10:23 am, "Matt Barrow" >
>
> Well, for HP Laserjets alone:
> Circuit Board Manufacturing
> Electrical Design Engineering
> Test Engineering
> Final Product Assembly
> To name a few...

Well, you just named two of four that are relatively unskilled, in a product
line that is 20 yers old (or more).

>
> But hey, we have more jobs flipping burgers than we used to!

Engineers are now burger flippers?

Hmmm... the American share of patents is rising about 1% a year, now
something like 75% of all those issued in the world (okay, the Islamic
countires are not doing their fair share).

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story/march-payrolls-up-180000-jobless/story.aspx?guid=%7B015F58FC%2D933D%2D4BA2%2DBC04%2 D5BC8B5B1885B%7D&dist=TNMostRead

Or use http://tinylink.com/?hKl5ID5T7l

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 07:02 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007040610503475249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-04-06 09:57:26 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > said:
>
>>>
>>
>> Amen! In the history of the world, when has anything ever become more
>> efficient, better service, and less money by having the gov't provide
>> it????
>
> Um, the autobahn and superhighways? They would not have existed at all if
> not for government.

Says who?

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 6th 07, 07:04 PM

"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:48:51 -0500, 601XL Builder
>> <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Why the hell does anyone thing it should become static now that we are
>>> here?
>>
>> Perhaps the issue is more about mediating that change so that its
>> destructive potential is mitigated.
>>
>
> But to do so we are screwing which nature which the environmentalists have
> been saying is BAD for the last 50 years or so.
>
> Then there is the whole issue that the warming trend isn't even limited to
> Earth and that Mars is experiencing global warming as well.

And who says it's bad? Sea level rise is mostly BS.

How about a longer growing season and a growing region further North in the
northern hemisphere.

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 07:05 PM

On Apr 6, 10:50 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-04-06 09:57:26 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > said:
>
>
>
> > Amen! In the history of the world, when has anything ever become more
> > efficient, better service, and less money by having the gov't provide
> > it????
>
> Um, the autobahn and superhighways?

No, I don't think the autobahn was ever private. The fact is if
private industry is in a field, gov't isn't going to be able to push
them out and do it more efficiently.

-Robert

Montblack

April 6th 07, 07:07 PM

("C J Campbell" wrote)
>Without government and the rule of law, you have the Taliban. You have
>warlords. You have slavery and human misery.

All of those are examples of governments ....exercising their particular
rule of law.

Montblack

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 07:22 PM

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:00 GMT, "ve5jl" > wrote
in <kh8Rh.32585$6m4.28180@pd7urf1no>:

>Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's private
>jet?
>
>I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>VE5JL.
>

Dear Joseph Lockhart,

What is the reason for your attempt to find a photograph of former US
Vice President Gore's alleged "private jet?"

Why is it that I am unable to find by ISBN nor title either of your
two books offered on your web site <http://www.ve5jl.com> on
Amazon.com nor BookFinder.com?

Have you completed any more of your airman's flight training other
than ground school yet? Have you joined the ranks of Canada's 40,000
airmen yet?

Montblack

April 6th 07, 07:23 PM

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> How about a longer growing season and a growing region further North in
> the northern hemisphere.

Hudson Bay Vineyards

http://i12.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/8b/50/1e1b_1.JPG
"The wine with the cute polar bear on the label"

Montblack
Land of 10,000 Coffee Plantations

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 07:28 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:38:34 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>How do we know that warmer isn't in fact better?

Perhaps you should suggest that to the myriad species that are
threatened with extinction due to the warming climate. :-)

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 07:31 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps you should suggest that to the myriad species that are
> threatened with extinction due to the warming climate. :-)
>

What about the presently threatened species that would flourish in a warmer
climate? :-)

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 07:35 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:54:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
nk.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It's good to see that we agree on the fundamental premise. Of course
>> the human-cause aspect of the issue is only inferred, so it is subject
>> to interpretation.
>>
>> Despite that, it seems only prudent to do what we can to retard the
>> rate of climate change for our own good. And in the process, if we
>> are able to reduce our dependence on oil and advance the trend toward
>> renewable energy, which is inevitable, we advance technological
>> development in a healthier direction, in my opinion.
>>
>
>Why does that seem prudent to you? How do you know we wouldn't be better
>off if temperatures were a bit warmer?
>

You haven't viewed Gore's movie yet. It's on SHO:
<http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search/searchProgramGuide.jsp?_requestid=434646>.
Watch it, and your questions will be answered.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 07:43 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:56:49 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
k.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.
>>
>
>Likewise.
>

Then why did you ask that it be done?

Some would argue that negatives can be proven:
http://www3.canisius.edu/~moleski/proof/provenegs.htm

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 07:44 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> You haven't viewed Gore's movie yet. It's on SHO:
> <http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search/searchProgramGuide.jsp?_requestid=434646>.
> Watch it, and your questions will be answered.
>

It's propaganda.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 07:44 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Yes, that is the truly sad part. Then again, I don't think real winners
> would ever run for political office in this country, so we'll never have
> that as a ballot option. The best we can do is vote for the least
> harmful loser.
>

When you can buy votes with money taken from people who work, innovate,
create and put their time and money at risk then elections cease to be
a fair and equitable means to elect people.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 07:48 PM

On 6 Apr 2007 09:10:13 -0700, wrote in
. com>:

>Our politicians are hell-bent on destroying our economy by driving
>jobs out. If you want to pollute the world even worse send the
>manufacturing to China!!!!! There are no restrictions over there!

Perhaps we US citizens should find our moral values, and decide not to
purchase goods manufactured in countries that lack environmental and
fair labor laws. Or our nation could remove its environmental laws,
and we could all choke on smog like Mexico City. The choices are
ours, after all.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 07:50 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Actually, it demonstrates that the majority of voters are easily
> fooled, and a significant number of voters have a vested interest in
> seeing that their leaders advance their personal interests at the
> expense of the good of the nation, IMO.
>

I couldn't agree more Larry. Politicians buy votes and pander to
various factions for theit own self interest. There are no true
'leaders" among any of them.

Our schools continmue to vomit masses of poorly educated (more like
indoctrinated) students having minimal to ZERO understanding of
fundamental principles of economics. The NEA is a HUGE lobby and
receives a massive amount of pandering from most politicians.

garbage in... garbage out.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 07:56 PM

On 6 Apr 2007 09:57:26 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in m>:

>In the history of the world, when has anything ever become more
>efficient, better service, and less money by having the gov't provide
>it????

I think air travelers were better off before airline deregulation.
Passengers had more room. Stews were younger. Food was better than
today. ...

kontiki

April 6th 07, 07:57 PM

> To hell with
> the future generations. So what if they inherit the consequences of
> our generation's rush to combust the products of hundreds of millions
> or years of life on our planet; it won't affect me today. Brilliant!
> Why didn't I think of that? :-(
>

As I stated Larry, the population growth of other areas of the world are
eclipsing that of the United States with each passing year. We *might*
get many thousands, even millions of more years on this planet if the
population growth were to stop... and we began to manage resources on
a *global* level....

....but intellectually you must admit that will *never* happen so why
get your panties in a wad hoping that somehow the government of the
United States can pass laws to fix it.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 08:01 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:05:17 -0500, 601XL Builder
<wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in
>:

>But to do so we are screwing which nature which the environmentalists
>have been saying is BAD for the last 50 years or so.

Oh, you mean like banning fluorocarbon aerosol propellants to diminish
the destruction of the ozone layer? :-(

>Then there is the whole issue that the warming trend isn't even limited
>to Earth and that Mars is experiencing global warming as well.

That's a diversionary argument that skirts the issue of the effect of
global warming on the potential extinction of species, flooding of
coastal land, and ocean current disruption.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 08:12 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Amen! In the history of the world, when has anything ever become more
> efficient, better service, and less money by having the gov't provide
> it???? On the other hand, if the goal is to get 10% of people to pay
> for the other 90%, then gov't is the only way to make that happen. I'd
> love to see someone actually try to bring the IRS up on charges of
> extortion. Stop paying your taxes and men with guns WILL show up in
> your house in the middle of the night!!!
>

Well stated Robert. In fact... if the government had to stand the
scrutiny of its own rules for private entities, the Social [in]Security
System would be shut down and its administrators (the US Congress)
would be facing class action lawsuits for breach of contract and
numerous SEC violations.

If its such a great retirement program why does the government *force*
people to participate??

But I digress...

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 08:14 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then why did you ask that it be done?
>

Not asked, challenged. One should be prepared to prove what one asserts.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 08:16 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think air travelers were better off before airline deregulation.
> Passengers had more room. Stews were younger. Food was better than
> today. ...
>

But it cost more.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 08:17 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:31:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Perhaps you should suggest that to the myriad species that are
>> threatened with extinction due to the warming climate. :-)
>>
>
>What about the presently threatened species that would flourish in a warmer
>climate? :-)
>

Name a few.

Are you suggesting that it's better to increase the numbers of a given
species at the expense of reducing the total number of species
currently living?

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 08:18 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:44:11 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You haven't viewed Gore's movie yet. It's on SHO:
>> <http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search/searchProgramGuide.jsp?_requestid=434646>.
>> Watch it, and your questions will be answered.
>>
>
>It's propaganda.
>

So you have seen it then?

Morgans[_2_]

April 6th 07, 08:18 PM

"kontiki" > wrote

> The NEA is a HUGE lobby and
> receives a massive amount of pandering from most politicians.

I think you have seriously over estimated the power of the NEA lobby.

If they had any real influence, conditions and pay for teachers would be
"significantly" different.

You want changes from the schools? Change parents, first. Without that, no
amount of money or effort will make a difference.
--
Jim in NC

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 08:24 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:57:35 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

> > To hell with
>> the future generations. So what if they inherit the consequences of
>> our generation's rush to combust the products of hundreds of millions
>> or years of life on our planet; it won't affect me today. Brilliant!
>> Why didn't I think of that? :-(
>>
>
>As I stated Larry, the population growth of other areas of the world are
>eclipsing that of the United States with each passing year. We *might*
>get many thousands, even millions of more years on this planet if the
>population growth were to stop... and we began to manage resources on
>a *global* level....

That's what's starting to occur now.

>...but intellectually you must admit that will *never* happen

I do not.

>so why get your panties in a wad

Have you been peeking at my panties? If so, your eyesight is failing.
:-)

>hoping that somehow the government of the United States can pass laws to fix it.

I made no such assertion about the US government. It's obviously a
global issue, and as such it demands a global approach.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 08:25 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Name a few.
>

Identify the myriad species that are threatened with extinction due to the
warming climate. :-)

>
> Are you suggesting that it's better to increase the numbers of a given
> species at the expense of reducing the total number of species
> currently living?
>

I'm saying we shouldn't tamper with nature.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 08:25 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you have seen it then?
>

No.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 08:29 PM

Morgans wrote:

>
> If they had any real influence, conditions and pay for teachers would be
> "significantly" different.

So you think they should be paid more? What evidence can you show me
that indicates students in government schools are better deucated
today than even 30 years ago?

>
> You want changes from the schools? Change parents, first. Without that, no
> amount of money or effort will make a difference.

Todays parents are the product of government schools. The United
States spends more money per capita than any other nation on earth
for education yet our students compare poorly against students of
other industrialized nations. I agree... no more money will help.

I say get the federal government out of the equation. Lets have
more private schools... give some parents (the ones that care)
vouchers so they can choose schools that do the best job of
educating their kids... and that ALLOW the parents to have a
say in the curriculum.

It will take another 30 years but their will be a change. The

kontiki

April 6th 07, 08:35 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> I made no such assertion about the US government. It's obviously a
> global issue, and as such it demands a global approach.
>

Well maybe you and Nacy Pelosi can start visiting other countries
around the world and attempt to convince (bribe) them into thinking
the way you do.

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 08:41 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:05:17 -0500, 601XL Builder
> <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in
> >:
>
>> But to do so we are screwing which nature which the environmentalists
>> have been saying is BAD for the last 50 years or so.
>
> Oh, you mean like banning fluorocarbon aerosol propellants to diminish
> the destruction of the ozone layer? :-(
>
>> Then there is the whole issue that the warming trend isn't even limited
>> to Earth and that Mars is experiencing global warming as well.
>
> That's a diversionary argument that skirts the issue of the effect of
> global warming on the potential extinction of species, flooding of
> coastal land, and ocean current disruption.
>

Yes, any facts that counter the global warming nuts are considered
diversionary. I also like how they explain EVERYTHING via the global
warming argument. Have a warmer day that normal ... global warming!
Have a colder day than normal ... global warming! McDonalds burn your
Big Mac ... global warming! Ok, I made up the last one, but the GW nuts
are almost at that level now.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 08:45 PM

Morgans wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote
>
>> The NEA is a HUGE lobby and
>> receives a massive amount of pandering from most politicians.
>
> I think you have seriously over estimated the power of the NEA lobby.
>
> If they had any real influence, conditions and pay for teachers would be
> "significantly" different.
>
> You want changes from the schools? Change parents, first. Without that, no
> amount of money or effort will make a difference.

Unfortunately, it was the changed schools of the 70s and 80s that gave
us the parents of the 90s and now. We removed from the schools morality
(prayer), any semblance of discipline (no spanking), any form of
personal accountability (might damage their self-esteem if you give them
a D), etc., and now we are wondering why we're in the state we're in.
This isn't rocket science folks. The outcome of the policy changes in
the public schools and society in general in the 60s through the 80s was
pretty predictable.

Matt

Jose

April 6th 07, 08:48 PM

>> The parents who don't care will still produce voters.
>>
> Yes but eventually, if we allow nature to take its course,
> they will become fewer and fewer... Darwin's theory.

That's a misapplication of Darwin's theory. The problem with the
uneducated isn't that they harm themselves, it's that they harm others.

> When you subsidize something (like stupidity) you get more of it.

This statement presumes that public education produces stupidity. While
I have my quarrels with public education, what it does, and how it does
that, I would disagree with your implicit assertion that it produces
stupidity.

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

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 08:54 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:16:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>But it cost more.

Was it significantly more? Can you quantify your assertion?

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:01 PM

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:18:12 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>You want changes from the schools? Change parents, first.

When mothers abandoned their traditional role of raising their
children, children ceased to be civilized. But out nation was more
competitive in the global marketplace. Now the majority of US
households are headed by a single parent who must not only earn enough
to live, but do all the parenting, house work, cooking, etc.... That
is what must be changed about parenting.

>Without that, no amount of money or effort will make a difference.

I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
country. Do you disagree?

Jose

April 6th 07, 09:03 PM

> I think air travelers were better off before airline deregulation.
> Passengers had more room. Stews were younger. Food was better than
> today. ...

Weren't prices higher?

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

Jose

April 6th 07, 09:05 PM

> Lets have
> more private schools... give some parents (the ones that care)
> vouchers so they can choose schools that do the best job of
> educating their kids... and that ALLOW the parents to have a
> say in the curriculum.

The parents who don't care will still produce voters.

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

Jose

April 6th 07, 09:06 PM

> We removed from the schools morality (prayer)

Prayer != morality, and does not belong in the schools. The Taliban has
prayer in their schools.

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

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:09 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:25:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>I'm saying we shouldn't tamper with nature.

Oh, you mean like exhausting the components of combustion of all the
life that existed for hundreds of millions of years into the
atmosphere as we currently do?

Or do you mean like burning the rain forests to exploit gold deposits,
or do you mean like hunting big game species to extinction, or do you
mean like over fishing the worlds oceans to near depletion, or do you
mean like discharging toxic effluent into our waterways, or are you
referring to failing to realize that the Earth is a closed system, and
we who populate the Earth need to consider implementing closed systems
to recycle our waste? :-(

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:11 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:25:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So you have seen it then?
>>
>
>No.
>

So you have no compunction about your judging former Vice President
Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' motion picture to be "propaganda"
without benefit of having viewed it?

Do you permit others to do your thinking for you, or are you just
prejudiced?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 09:17 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, you mean like exhausting the components of combustion of all the
> life that existed for hundreds of millions of years into the
> atmosphere as we currently do?
>
> Or do you mean like burning the rain forests to exploit gold deposits,
> or do you mean like hunting big game species to extinction, or do you
> mean like over fishing the worlds oceans to near depletion, or do you
> mean like discharging toxic effluent into our waterways, or are you
> referring to failing to realize that the Earth is a closed system, and
> we who populate the Earth need to consider implementing closed systems
> to recycle our waste? :-(
>

Yup.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 09:29 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Was it significantly more?
>

I think so.

>
> Can you quantify your assertion?
>

Nope.

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 09:31 PM

On Apr 6, 12:54 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:16:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
> >But it cost more.
>
> Was it significantly more? Can you quantify your assertion?

It was way more expensive. I don't ever remember families taking
vacations by air. It was mostly just business flyers. Since there can
be a wide variety of prices on a given flight even today it would be
hard to quantify. However, just imagine SouthWest no longer in
business (since they only compete on price) and you had to fly United
or American every flight. There were (and could not be ) any discount
airlines under regulation.

-robert

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:31 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:41:46 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:05:17 -0500, 601XL Builder
>> <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> But to do so we are screwing which nature which the environmentalists
>>> have been saying is BAD for the last 50 years or so.
>>
>> Oh, you mean like banning fluorocarbon aerosol propellants to diminish
>> the destruction of the ozone layer? :-(
>>
>>> Then there is the whole issue that the warming trend isn't even limited
>>> to Earth and that Mars is experiencing global warming as well.
>>
>> That's a diversionary argument that skirts the issue of the effect of
>> global warming on the potential extinction of species, flooding of
>> coastal land, and ocean current disruption.
>>
>
>Yes, any facts that counter the global warming nuts are considered
>diversionary. I also like how they explain EVERYTHING via the global
>warming argument. Have a warmer day that normal ... global warming!
>Have a colder day than normal ... global warming! McDonalds burn your
>Big Mac ... global warming! Ok, I made up the last one, but the GW nuts
>are almost at that level now.
>
>Matt

It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
motion picture yet.

Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:36 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:03:05 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> I think air travelers were better off before airline deregulation.
>> Passengers had more room. Stews were younger. Food was better than
>> today. ...
>
>Weren't prices higher?

I don't know.

If ticket prices were higher than today, it would be interesting to
know how much more we had to pay back then for the excellent service
airline passengers enjoyed under government regulation.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:37 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:06:19 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>Prayer != morality, and does not belong in the schools. The Taliban has
>prayer in their schools.

Thank you!

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 09:37 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
> class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
> significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
> country. Do you disagree?
>

I disagree.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 09:38 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> So you have no compunction about your judging former Vice President
> Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' motion picture to be "propaganda"
> without benefit of having viewed it?
>

We've all had many years to judge Algore's philosophies and ideas.
He is his own worst enemeny... and he doesn't even have the stones
to practise what he preaches. Typical blowhard politician.

> Do you permit others to do your thinking for you, or are you just
> prejudiced?
>

I will certainly try to prevent Algore from doing my thinking for
me... but he represents a movement that proposes to do just that for
everyone else.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 09:40 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you have no compunction about your judging former Vice President
> Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' motion picture to be "propaganda"
> without benefit of having viewed it?
>
> Do you permit others to do your thinking for you, or are you just
> prejudiced?
>

Nobody does my thinking for me, nor am I prejudiced. I've heard Gore's
message on the subject many times.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 09:41 PM

Jose wrote:

>
>
> The parents who don't care will still produce voters.
>
Yes but eventually, if we allow nature to take its course,
they will become fewer and fewer... Darwin's theory.

When you subsidize something (like stupidity) you get more of it.
If you stop subsidizing something you will get less of it.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:42 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:17:45 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
k.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> I'm saying we shouldn't tamper with nature.
>>
>> Oh, you mean like exhausting the components of combustion of all the
>> life that existed for hundreds of millions of years into the
>> atmosphere as we currently do?
>>
>> Or do you mean like burning the rain forests to exploit gold deposits,
>> or do you mean like hunting big game species to extinction, or do you
>> mean like over fishing the worlds oceans to near depletion, or do you
>> mean like discharging toxic effluent into our waterways, or are you
>> referring to failing to realize that the Earth is a closed system, and
>> we who populate the Earth need to consider implementing closed systems
>> to recycle our waste? :-(
>>
>
>Yup.
>

So, if you agree that those things shouldn't be done, are you
proposing that they be curtailed?

kontiki

April 6th 07, 09:44 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:
> We removed from the schools morality
> (prayer), any semblance of discipline (no spanking), any form of
> personal accountability (might damage their self-esteem if you give them
> a D), etc., and now we are wondering why we're in the state we're in.

The real problem wasn't prayer (or the lack of it) it was the
year by year increased meddling by the federal government into
something they have no business meddling in... education.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 09:46 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
> motion picture yet.
>
> Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.
>

Does Gore take a different position in the film than he has elsewhere when
speaking on the issue?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 09:49 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, if you agree that those things shouldn't be done, are you
> proposing that they be curtailed?
>

They are being curtailed.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 09:53 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
> class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
> significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
> country. Do you disagree?

Larry c'mon man! get real... you are going off the deep end. If you
are proposing that then how about just eliminate educational taxes
(which are by far largest part of anyone's tax bill) and let people
keep that money to spend on tutors or home schooling?

Sheesh... What is it with you? If government can't do it then it can't
be done???

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:54 PM

On 6 Apr 2007 13:31:03 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in m>:

>On Apr 6, 12:54 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:16:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>
>> >But it cost more.
>>
>> Was it significantly more? Can you quantify your assertion?
>
>It was way more expensive.

Are you suggesting that the cost of a coach ticket today is about half
of what it might have been under federal regulation? More? Less?

>I don't ever remember families taking vacations by air.

Our family did several vacations (coast to coast, and international)
by air transport during the '50s.

>It was mostly just business flyers.

Perhaps that wasn't a bad thing.

>Since there can
>be a wide variety of prices on a given flight even today it would be
>hard to quantify. However, just imagine SouthWest no longer in
>business (since they only compete on price) and you had to fly United
>or American every flight. There were (and could not be ) any discount
>airlines under regulation.
>

Personally, I don't have a problem with paying for comfort and good
service. Today an airline passenger has to pay five to ten times
coach fare to get decent service and comfort.

Those who fill the skies with unnecessary discount flights might
better take the train. Then there'd be enough rail passengers to make
AMTRAK solvent, hopefully, and there'd be impetus to improve train
service and equipment. Just a thought.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 09:55 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:37:52 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
>> class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
>> significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
>> country. Do you disagree?
>>
>
>I disagree.
>

Why?

kontiki

April 6th 07, 09:57 PM

Jose wrote:

> This statement presumes that public education produces stupidity.

That is precisely what I am "presuming".

> While
> I have my quarrels with public education, what it does, and how it does
> that, I would disagree with your implicit assertion that it produces
> stupidity.
>

Well I'm glad you are happy with it Jose. Its certainly the envy of
the world [not].

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 09:59 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Personally, I don't have a problem with paying for comfort and good
> service. Today an airline passenger has to pay five to ten times
> coach fare to get decent service and comfort.
>

So what's the problem then? Comfort and good service is available for those
willing to pay premium prices, and cheap fares are available for those that
just want to get there.

>
> Those who fill the skies with unnecessary discount flights might
> better take the train. Then there'd be enough rail passengers to make
> AMTRAK solvent, hopefully, and there'd be impetus to improve train
> service and equipment. Just a thought.
>

Gee, there's a great example of government run transportation.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:06 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:40:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So you have no compunction about your judging former Vice President
>> Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' motion picture to be "propaganda"
>> without benefit of having viewed it?
>>
>> Do you permit others to do your thinking for you, or are you just
>> prejudiced?
>>
>
>Nobody does my thinking for me, nor am I prejudiced. I've heard Gore's
>message on the subject many times.
>

So you are under the (mis)impression that Gore's movie only offers his
message, nothing else like empirical evidence?

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:10 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:44:29 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>
>The real problem wasn't prayer (or the lack of it) it was the
>year by year increased meddling by the federal government into
>something they have no business meddling in... education.

Oh, you mean like in the '60s when President Kennedy instituted a
national program of physical fitness for students?

Today the government is funding a half billion dollars over five years
for research into the cause of childhood obesity while only 25% of
school children attend physical education classes.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:11 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:46:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
>> motion picture yet.
>>
>> Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.
>>
>
>Does Gore take a different position in the film than he has elsewhere when
>speaking on the issue?
>

It's not about Gore's position. It's about the overwhelming evidence
presented.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:12 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why?
>

Because I see no reason to believe that reducing class size to one teacher
per student would significantly change the quality of student achievement in
this country. The NEA has long maintained that reducing class size will
lead to higher achievement, but can point to nothing that supports that
assertion. Schools in other countries have greater class sizes and produce
better results than US public schools. The call for smaller class size is
just a poorly disguised call for more dues-paying NEA members.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:14 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you are under the (mis)impression that Gore's movie only offers his
> message, nothing else like empirical evidence?
>

Are you saying Gore saved all of his "empirical evidence" for his movie?

kontiki

April 6th 07, 10:15 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Today the government is funding a half billion dollars over five years
> for research into the cause of childhood obesity while only 25% of
> school children attend physical education classes.

Well, by God then we need even more government spending and research.

I have an idea... lets just give our paychecks to Hillary and let her
take what she needs and give us back what she thinks we'll need to live.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:15 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's not about Gore's position. It's about the overwhelming evidence
> presented.
>

Overwhelming evidence indicates human activity has little effect on global
warming.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:22 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:59:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Personally, I don't have a problem with paying for comfort and good
>> service. Today an airline passenger has to pay five to ten times
>> coach fare to get decent service and comfort.
>>
>
>So what's the problem then? Comfort and good service is available for those
>willing to pay premium prices, and cheap fares are available for those that
>just want to get there.

I doubt the cost of a an airline ticket under federal regulation was
five to ten times as much as today's coach ticket, like business class
and first class tickets are today.

kontiki

April 6th 07, 10:22 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> Overwhelming evidence indicates human activity has little effect on global
> warming.
>
>
In fact, the radiation output of the sun eclipses anything we could even
contemplate. And one day... many thousands of years hence, when the sun
supernovas the earth will become a cinder in space... its atmosphere
boiled off.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:22 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Today the government is funding a half billion dollars over five years
> for research into the cause of childhood obesity while only 25% of
> school children attend physical education classes.
>

It's because they eat too much and aren't active enough. I'd have happily
told the government that for far less than half a billion dollars.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:24 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I doubt the cost of a an airline ticket under federal regulation was
> five to ten times as much as today's coach ticket, like business class
> and first class tickets are today.
>

So fly coach.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:25 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:12:36 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Schools in other countries have greater class sizes and produce
>better results than US public schools.

Are you able to provide examples that support that assertion?

If it is indeed true, to what do you attribute the success of those
schools with greater class sizes in producing high student
achievement?

kontiki

April 6th 07, 10:26 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>
>>Those who fill the skies with unnecessary discount flights might
>>better take the train. Then there'd be enough rail passengers to make
>>AMTRAK solvent, hopefully, and there'd be impetus to improve train
>>service and equipment. Just a thought.
>>
>
>
> Gee, there's a great example of government run transportation.
>
>

Larry's ideal world is one in which government will make the decisions
about which mode of transportation is best for each individual....
or the collective.

"...to each according to his needs." .. the needs determined by Larry.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:27 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:14:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So you are under the (mis)impression that Gore's movie only offers his
>> message, nothing else like empirical evidence?
>>
>
>Are you saying Gore saved all of his "empirical evidence" for his movie?
>

Huh?

I'm saying, that once you have seen the evidence presented in the
movie, you will have a better understanding of the issue of global
warming. Surely you'd don't disagree with that.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:37 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:15:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It's not about Gore's position. It's about the overwhelming evidence
>> presented.
>>
>
>Overwhelming evidence indicates human activity has little effect on global
>warming.
>

So for you the issue is all about who's to blame, not about how to
mitigate it?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:38 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you able to provide examples that support that assertion?
>

"Although it is popular to claim that smaller class size leads to better
learning, especially in our public schools, I'm not aware of any empirical
data to support this claim. In the US, the average class size in our public
schools is 30, whereas in Japan it is 45--yet Japanese students have
outperformed American students for decades. With regard to freshman
composition, I know of only one published empirical study (Feldman, 1984,
Class size and college students' evaluation of teachers and courses,
Research in Higher Education, 20, 45-116), but it does not address the issue
of class size and performance. There may be others, but if so, they are not
well known. Given the number of variables associated with student
performance--motivation, previous training, students' sex, SES, teacher
expectations, teacher training and methodology, reading ability,
intelligence, etc.--I'm not sure how one could go about even researching
this question in a way that would control all the variables. Having stated
what may be obvious, I would note that much anecdotal evidence supports the
view that effective composition instruction entails establishing a mentoring
apprenticeship with students. If this view is correct, and I believe it is,
then the "ideal" class size would be much smaller than 12. In fact, a
composition teacher would never have more than 4 or 5 students per year."

http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/580

>
> If it is indeed true, to what do you attribute the success of those
> schools with greater class sizes in producing high student
> achievement?
>

"Japanese teachers believe that large classes are better than small ones
because they encourage peer relationships and interaction. They also lower
the salience of the teacher as the focus of the students' attention."

"Learning to go to school in Japan." - page 56, Lois Peak, University of
California Press

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:39 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm saying, that once you have seen the evidence presented in the
> movie, you will have a better understanding of the issue of global
> warming. Surely you'd don't disagree with that.
>

I think I'm better off sticking with objective sources.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:41 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:22:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Today the government is funding a half billion dollars over five years
>> for research into the cause of childhood obesity while only 25% of
>> school children attend physical education classes.
>>
>
>It's because they eat too much and aren't active enough. I'd have happily
>told the government that for far less than half a billion dollars.

You forgot to mention the fast food enterprises infiltrating the
campuses.

The influence of big corporations on government policy is appalling.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:41 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So for you the issue is all about who's to blame, not about how to
> mitigate it?
>

I don't think anyone's to blame and it doesn't need to be mitigated. Why do
you conclude that global warming, whether man-made or natural, is
necessarily bad?

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 10:43 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:24:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I doubt the cost of a an airline ticket under federal regulation was
>> five to ten times as much as today's coach ticket, like business class
>> and first class tickets are today.
>>
>
>So fly coach.
>

I hope you're not suggesting that today's coach ticket provides the
same level of comfort and service as that available during the period
of federal airline regulation.

Morgans[_2_]

April 6th 07, 10:44 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Unfortunately, it was the changed schools of the 70s and 80s that gave us
> the parents of the 90s and now. We removed from the schools morality
> (prayer), any semblance of discipline (no spanking), any form of personal
> accountability (might damage their self-esteem if you give them a D),
> etc., and now we are wondering why we're in the state we're in. This isn't
> rocket science folks. The outcome of the policy changes in the public
> schools and society in general in the 60s through the 80s was pretty
> predictable.

BACK UP, A MINUTE ! ! !

Not one thing above was a change instituted by the schools. NOT ONE ! ! !

Lawyers, lawsuits, government rulings and impositions on schools, each and
every one.
--
Jim in NC

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:48 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The influence of big corporations on government policy is appalling.
>

If the government stopped setting policy big corporations would stop seeking
to influence them.

flynrider via AviationKB.com

April 6th 07, 10:49 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>>The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>
>You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?

Do you normally "inform yourself" at the movies? I've seen Gore's movie
and found it short on actual science and long on sensationalism. Pretty
charts and graphs do not equal science.

Have you seen the BBC's documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming
Swindle"? It features many reputable scientists (that don't get paid by oil
companies), and provides an insightful review of Gores charts and graphs by
actual climatologists. They point out that the man-caused theory of global
warming only works if you ignore the historical climate data that does not
fit the model.

I highly recommend it.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:50 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I hope you're not suggesting that today's coach ticket provides the
> same level of comfort and service as that available during the period
> of federal airline regulation.
>

I'm suggesting you should stop whining. The service you desire is available
at a price. If you want the service pay the price.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 10:51 PM

"flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7050f9c234ea4@uwe...
>
> Have you seen the BBC's documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming
> Swindle"? It features many reputable scientists (that don't get paid by
> oil
> companies), and provides an insightful review of Gores charts and graphs
> by
> actual climatologists. They point out that the man-caused theory of
> global
> warming only works if you ignore the historical climate data that does not
> fit the model.
>
> I highly recommend it.
>

I've seen parts of it. Very well done, very informative.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 11:01 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:38:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Are you able to provide examples that support that assertion?
>>
>
>"Although it is popular to claim that smaller class size leads to better
>learning, especially in our public schools, I'm not aware of any empirical
>data to support this claim. In the US, the average class size in our public
>schools is 30, whereas in Japan it is 45--yet Japanese students have
>outperformed American students for decades. With regard to freshman
>composition, I know of only one published empirical study (Feldman, 1984,
>Class size and college students' evaluation of teachers and courses,
>Research in Higher Education, 20, 45-116), but it does not address the issue
>of class size and performance. There may be others, but if so, they are not
>well known. Given the number of variables associated with student
>performance--motivation, previous training, students' sex, SES, teacher
>expectations, teacher training and methodology, reading ability,
>intelligence, etc.--I'm not sure how one could go about even researching
>this question in a way that would control all the variables. Having stated
>what may be obvious, I would note that much anecdotal evidence supports the
>view that effective composition instruction entails establishing a mentoring
>apprenticeship with students. If this view is correct, and I believe it is,
>then the "ideal" class size would be much smaller than 12. In fact, a
>composition teacher would never have more than 4 or 5 students per year."
>
>http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/580
>
>
>>
>> If it is indeed true, to what do you attribute the success of those
>> schools with greater class sizes in producing high student
>> achievement?
>>
>
>"Japanese teachers believe that large classes are better than small ones
>because they encourage peer relationships and interaction. They also lower
>the salience of the teacher as the focus of the students' attention."
>
>"Learning to go to school in Japan." - page 56, Lois Peak, University of
>California Press

That is indeed interesting information of which I was completely
unaware.

My personal observation of Los Angeles area high school classes in the
mid '80s (incidental to work I was performing in the classrooms
throughout the school), ranged from the teachers being overloaded at
times to the point of not being able to address the needs of all the
kids, to the teachers being completely overwhelmed by obstreperous
students who paid little to no attention to the lessons the teachers
were attempting teach. I recall one typing class where there were
three or four students huddled around the teacher while the rest of
them indulged in boisterous, disruptive behavior. It was shocking to
witness. I don't recall a single class of calm students intent upon
learning. At the time, I attributed the joke that passed for
education to the teachers being out numbered. Perhaps I was wrong.

Thanks for the information.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 11:03 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:39:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>I think I'm better off sticking with objective sources.

Do your objective sources mention the rapid rate of polar ice melting,
and consequences it may cause as a result of altering the "conveyer
belt" ocean currents?

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 11:17 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:41:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So for you the issue is all about who's to blame, not about how to
>> mitigate it?
>>
>
>I don't think anyone's to blame and it doesn't need to be mitigated. Why do
>you conclude that global warming, whether man-made or natural, is
>necessarily bad?
>

There are a number of reasons.

For instance, it is my understanding that Polar Bears are drowning
because they are too exhausted to reach sea ice that has retreated to
record levels. Should this result in a reduction in the Polar Bear
population, it will cause native peoples of the polar latitudes to
abandon their traditional ways of life.

The ice covering Greenland is currently melting at all time record
rates. That feeds a positive feedback system in which the incident
isolation is no longer reflected back into space, but absorbed by the
exposed land leading to an increase of environmental temperatures.
That accelerates melting.

If the less dense melt water dilutes the mineral laden sea water at
the poles, it is possible that it may disrupt the ocean current
"conveyer" that causes the historical climates to which we are
accustomed, and it may disrupt ocean biota to the point of reducing
available nutrients for sea life....

You should really view the movie.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 11:23 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do your objective sources mention the rapid rate of polar ice melting,
> and consequences it may cause as a result of altering the "conveyer
> belt" ocean currents?
>

Yup.

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 11:23 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:48:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The influence of big corporations on government policy is appalling.
>>
>
>If the government stopped setting policy big corporations would stop seeking
>to influence them.
>

In that case, what would be government's role?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 11:27 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are a number of reasons.
>
> For instance, it is my understanding that Polar Bears are drowning
> because they are too exhausted to reach sea ice that has retreated to
> record levels. Should this result in a reduction in the Polar Bear
> population, it will cause native peoples of the polar latitudes to
> abandon their traditional ways of life.
>
> The ice covering Greenland is currently melting at all time record
> rates. That feeds a positive feedback system in which the incident
> isolation is no longer reflected back into space, but absorbed by the
> exposed land leading to an increase of environmental temperatures.
> That accelerates melting.
>
> If the less dense melt water dilutes the mineral laden sea water at
> the poles, it is possible that it may disrupt the ocean current
> "conveyer" that causes the historical climates to which we are
> accustomed, and it may disrupt ocean biota to the point of reducing
> available nutrients for sea life....
>

Nobody disputes there will be changes, but you seem to believe that any
changes are necessarily bad.

>
> You should really view the movie.
>

I'll stick with science.

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:37 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:41:46 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:05:17 -0500, 601XL Builder
>>> <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> But to do so we are screwing which nature which the environmentalists
>>>> have been saying is BAD for the last 50 years or so.
>>> Oh, you mean like banning fluorocarbon aerosol propellants to diminish
>>> the destruction of the ozone layer? :-(
>>>
>>>> Then there is the whole issue that the warming trend isn't even limited
>>>> to Earth and that Mars is experiencing global warming as well.
>>> That's a diversionary argument that skirts the issue of the effect of
>>> global warming on the potential extinction of species, flooding of
>>> coastal land, and ocean current disruption.
>>>
>> Yes, any facts that counter the global warming nuts are considered
>> diversionary. I also like how they explain EVERYTHING via the global
>> warming argument. Have a warmer day that normal ... global warming!
>> Have a colder day than normal ... global warming! McDonalds burn your
>> Big Mac ... global warming! Ok, I made up the last one, but the GW nuts
>> are almost at that level now.
>>
>> Matt
>
> It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
> motion picture yet.
>
> Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.

Gore's film doesn't contain information, so watching the complete film
is a waste of time. I did attend a lecture recently by Ira Magaziner
who is chair of the Clinton Climate Initiative. After 1.5 hours of
lecture, I remain absolutely convinced that global warming is just a
another scam to line the pockets of Clinton, Gore and their cronies.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:38 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:46:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
>>> motion picture yet.
>>>
>>> Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.
>>>
>> Does Gore take a different position in the film than he has elsewhere when
>> speaking on the issue?
>>
>
> It's not about Gore's position. It's about the overwhelming evidence
> presented.
>

No, it is about the overwhelming evidence omitted.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 11:39 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> In that case, what would be government's role?
>

Provide and maintain a navy, raise and support an army, coin money, fix
standard weights and measures, establish uniform rules of naturalization,
secure patents and copyrights, establish post offices and post roads, punish
piracies and felonies committed on the high seas against international law,
and to make all laws necessary for carrying out those roles.

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:41 PM

Jose wrote:
>> We removed from the schools morality (prayer)
>
> Prayer != morality, and does not belong in the schools. The Taliban has
> prayer in their schools.

True, I was referring to the morality that existed in the US up until
the 60s, not the Taliban. What a dumb comparison and you know it.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:41 PM

kontiki wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> > We removed from the schools morality
>> (prayer), any semblance of discipline (no spanking), any form of
>> personal accountability (might damage their self-esteem if you give
>> them a D), etc., and now we are wondering why we're in the state we're
>> in.
>
>
> The real problem wasn't prayer (or the lack of it) it was the
> year by year increased meddling by the federal government into
> something they have no business meddling in... education.
>

Yes, that is very true.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:42 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:22:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Today the government is funding a half billion dollars over five years
>>> for research into the cause of childhood obesity while only 25% of
>>> school children attend physical education classes.
>>>
>> It's because they eat too much and aren't active enough. I'd have happily
>> told the government that for far less than half a billion dollars.
>
> You forgot to mention the fast food enterprises infiltrating the
> campuses.

Ah, another person who doesn't understand personal accountability. Did
you attend public school in the 70s or 80s?

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:43 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:48:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The influence of big corporations on government policy is appalling.
>>>
>> If the government stopped setting policy big corporations would stop seeking
>> to influence them.
>>
>
> In that case, what would be government's role?

National defense, interstate commerce, interstate transportation and
foreign policy. Most everything else is just harmful meddling.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:45 PM

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> Unfortunately, it was the changed schools of the 70s and 80s that gave us
>> the parents of the 90s and now. We removed from the schools morality
>> (prayer), any semblance of discipline (no spanking), any form of personal
>> accountability (might damage their self-esteem if you give them a D),
>> etc., and now we are wondering why we're in the state we're in. This isn't
>> rocket science folks. The outcome of the policy changes in the public
>> schools and society in general in the 60s through the 80s was pretty
>> predictable.
>
> BACK UP, A MINUTE ! ! !
>
> Not one thing above was a change instituted by the schools. NOT ONE ! ! !
>
> Lawyers, lawsuits, government rulings and impositions on schools, each and
> every one.

You back up and read what I wrote. I never once said that the schools
instigated the changes, I said the schools were changed. I wish schools
would go back to teaching reading comprehension.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:46 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:18:12 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote in >:
>
>> You want changes from the schools? Change parents, first.
>
> When mothers abandoned their traditional role of raising their
> children, children ceased to be civilized. But out nation was more
> competitive in the global marketplace. Now the majority of US
> households are headed by a single parent who must not only earn enough
> to live, but do all the parenting, house work, cooking, etc.... That
> is what must be changed about parenting.
>
>> Without that, no amount of money or effort will make a difference.
>
> I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
> class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
> significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
> country. Do you disagree?

Ah, home schooling! Yes, this is very effective and should be encouraged!!

Matt

Robert M. Gary

April 6th 07, 11:46 PM

On Apr 6, 1:36 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:03:05 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
> >> I think air travelers were better off before airline deregulation.
> >> Passengers had more room. Stews were younger. Food was better than
> >> today. ...
>
> >Weren't prices higher?
>
> I don't know.
>
> If ticket prices were higher than today, it would be interesting to
> know how much more we had to pay back then for the excellent service
> airline passengers enjoyed under government regulation.

You mean "the excellent service airline passengers were required by
law to purchase under gov regulation". You can buy the same service
now, the only difference is you also have a discount alternative.

-robrt

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:46 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:38:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Are you able to provide examples that support that assertion?
>>>
>> "Although it is popular to claim that smaller class size leads to better
>> learning, especially in our public schools, I'm not aware of any empirical
>> data to support this claim. In the US, the average class size in our public
>> schools is 30, whereas in Japan it is 45--yet Japanese students have
>> outperformed American students for decades. With regard to freshman
>> composition, I know of only one published empirical study (Feldman, 1984,
>> Class size and college students' evaluation of teachers and courses,
>> Research in Higher Education, 20, 45-116), but it does not address the issue
>> of class size and performance. There may be others, but if so, they are not
>> well known. Given the number of variables associated with student
>> performance--motivation, previous training, students' sex, SES, teacher
>> expectations, teacher training and methodology, reading ability,
>> intelligence, etc.--I'm not sure how one could go about even researching
>> this question in a way that would control all the variables. Having stated
>> what may be obvious, I would note that much anecdotal evidence supports the
>> view that effective composition instruction entails establishing a mentoring
>> apprenticeship with students. If this view is correct, and I believe it is,
>> then the "ideal" class size would be much smaller than 12. In fact, a
>> composition teacher would never have more than 4 or 5 students per year."
>>
>> http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/580
>>
>>
>>> If it is indeed true, to what do you attribute the success of those
>>> schools with greater class sizes in producing high student
>>> achievement?
>>>
>> "Japanese teachers believe that large classes are better than small ones
>> because they encourage peer relationships and interaction. They also lower
>> the salience of the teacher as the focus of the students' attention."
>>
>> "Learning to go to school in Japan." - page 56, Lois Peak, University of
>> California Press
>
>
> That is indeed interesting information of which I was completely
> unaware.
>
> My personal observation of Los Angeles area high school classes in the
> mid '80s (incidental to work I was performing in the classrooms
> throughout the school), ranged from the teachers being overloaded at
> times to the point of not being able to address the needs of all the
> kids, to the teachers being completely overwhelmed by obstreperous
> students who paid little to no attention to the lessons the teachers
> were attempting teach. I recall one typing class where there were
> three or four students huddled around the teacher while the rest of
> them indulged in boisterous, disruptive behavior. It was shocking to
> witness. I don't recall a single class of calm students intent upon
> learning. At the time, I attributed the joke that passed for
> education to the teachers being out numbered. Perhaps I was wrong.
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
>
>

Now if you'll study up on global warming we can get you straight there
as well. :-)

Matt

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 11:49 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:49:10 GMT, "flynrider via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote in <7050f9c234ea4@uwe>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>The whole global warming thing in my opinion is a hoax.
>>
>>You need to inform yourself. Have you seen Gore's movie yet?
>
> Do you normally "inform yourself" at the movies?

I find many documentaries to be highly informative, as apparently do
you.

>I've seen Gore's movie
>and found it short on actual science and long on sensationalism. Pretty
>charts and graphs do not equal science.

So what of the photographic evidence presented in Gore's documentary?
Do you find that suspect as well?

> Have you seen the BBC's documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming
>Swindle"?

I was unaware of it. A search of the DirecTV program guide and
Internet Movie Database did not find it either.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search/searchProgramGuideNoResults.jsp?_requestid=512253
http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+swindle

However, there is information about "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Viewpoints expressed in the film
The film's basic premises are that the current state of knowledge
on global warming has numerous flaws, and that vested interests in
science and the media discourage the public and the scientific
community from acknowledging this. It argues against the consensus
scientific opinion on climate change that human activity is the
primary cause of global warming (as supported by the scientific
academies of the major industrialized nations[3] and other
professional scientific bodies). The film explains the apparent
scientific consensus as the product of a "global warming industry"
driven by a desire for research funding. Another target is Western
environmentalists who, the film claims, promote expensive solar
power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, holding Africa back from
industrializing.

Some of the people who are interviewed in the film are
environmentalist Patrick Moore, co-founder, but for the past 21
years a critic, of Greenpeace; Richard Lindzen, professor of
meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick
Michaels, professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of
Virginia; Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist; John
Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center
at University of Alabama; and Paul Reiter of the Pasteur
Institute. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but
has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's
conclusions and the way his interview material was used.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
THE PROGRAMME
THE ARGUMENTS
WATCH TRAILER
ASK OUR EXPERT
Ask Your Question >
The Expert >
VOTE
FIND OUT MORE
PLAY QUIZ
GLOBAL WARMING
THE ENVIRONMENT
BACK TO THE FUTURE
POLITICS OF CARBON
GREEN TECHNOLOGY
NUCLEAR POWER
FORUM

>It features many reputable scientists (that don't get paid by oil
>companies), and provides an insightful review of Gores charts and graphs by
>actual climatologists. They point out that the man-caused theory of global
>warming only works if you ignore the historical climate data that does not
>fit the model.
>
> I highly recommend it.
>

I would like to see it. Thanks.

However, it is immaterial to me whether man-made C02 is the root cause
of climate change or not. Regardless of the cause, it's going to be a
different planet if global warming continues.

Matt Whiting

April 6th 07, 11:55 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:44:11 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> You haven't viewed Gore's movie yet. It's on SHO:
>>> <http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search/searchProgramGuide.jsp?_requestid=434646>.
>>> Watch it, and your questions will be answered.
>>>
>> It's propaganda.
>>
>
> So you have seen it then?
>

Where can I see it for free? Obviously, a movie such as this should be
offered free as a public service, right? It shouldn't be a profit maker
for Al Gore, right?

Matt

Larry Dighera

April 6th 07, 11:55 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:23:32 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
nk.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Do your objective sources mention the rapid rate of polar ice melting,
>> and consequences it may cause as a result of altering the "conveyer
>> belt" ocean currents?
>>
>
>Yup.

And you are unconcerned?

Dan Luke

April 6th 07, 11:56 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>
> I'll stick with science.

Where do you get your science?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 11:57 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you are unconcerned?
>

Yup.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 6th 07, 11:59 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I find many documentaries to be highly informative, as apparently do
> you.
>

I do too. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a documentary.

Morgans[_2_]

April 7th 07, 12:01 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> You back up and read what I wrote. I never once said that the schools
> instigated the changes, I said the schools were changed. I wish schools
> would go back to teaching reading comprehension.

I apologize. You are right. The changes were made, but you did not say who
made the changes.

It is our society that must take the blame, as a whole, not "the schools."

I admit that I am sensitive to our schools being blamed for our predicament.
It happens far too often.
--
Jim in NC

Larry Dighera

April 7th 07, 12:03 AM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:39:50 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
k.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In that case, what would be government's role?
>>
>
>Provide and maintain a navy, raise and support an army, coin money, fix
>standard weights and measures, establish uniform rules of naturalization,
>secure patents and copyrights, establish post offices and post roads, punish
>piracies and felonies committed on the high seas against international law,
>and to make all laws necessary for carrying out those roles.
>

So you feel that government has no place in educating the nation's
children? No place in prosecuting monopolies? No place in operating
the NAS? No place in funding space research? No place in providing
for public health? No place regulating labor practices? No place in
international diplomacy? .... Interesting.

Matt Whiting

April 7th 07, 12:08 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> You back up and read what I wrote. I never once said that the schools
>> instigated the changes, I said the schools were changed. I wish schools
>> would go back to teaching reading comprehension.
>
> I apologize. You are right. The changes were made, but you did not say who
> made the changes.
>
> It is our society that must take the blame, as a whole, not "the schools."
>
> I admit that I am sensitive to our schools being blamed for our predicament.
> It happens far too often.

I wasn't blaming the schools or the teachers. I was blaming the changes
that have taken place in the schools and what this has done to the
product of the schools. We're now seeing what the first and second
generations of this experiment gone awry have produced.

Matt

Judah

April 7th 07, 12:12 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
> class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
> significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
> country. Do you disagree?

In a class of 1, how do you determine whether a failing grade is caused by
the student or the teacher?

Dan Luke

April 7th 07, 12:15 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>> I find many documentaries to be highly informative, as apparently do
>> you.
>>
>
> I do too. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a documentary.

To me, it appeared to be an attempt to "dumb down" the evidence for
anthropogenic climate change for the benefit of science illiterates. As such,
It did not really show me any new, convincing arguments on the side of ACC.

The subject is far too complex for such fluffy productions to be useful. I
admit that I may have been influenced by my personal antipathy to Gore, but I
found the film insulting.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Larry Dighera

April 7th 07, 12:16 AM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:55:22 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>Where can I see it for free?
It's on SHO:
<http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search/searchProgramGuide.jsp?_requestid=434646>.

Judah

April 7th 07, 12:24 AM

"flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7050f9c234ea4@uwe:

> Have you seen the BBC's documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming
> Swindle"? It features many reputable scientists (that don't get paid by
> oil companies), and provides an insightful review of Gores charts and
> graphs by actual climatologists. They point out that the man-caused
> theory of global warming only works if you ignore the historical climate
> data that does not fit the model.
>
> I highly recommend it.

Are you certain that the BBC doesn't have its own agenda?

Matt Whiting

April 7th 07, 12:26 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:55:22 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Where can I see it for free?
> It's on SHO:
> <http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search/searchProgramGuide.jsp?_requestid=434646>.

I don't get cable or satellite TV so this wouldn't be free.

Matt Whiting

April 7th 07, 12:27 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:55:22 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Where can I see it for free?
> It's on SHO:
> <http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/search/searchProgramGuide.jsp?_requestid=434646>.

Since Al invented the internet, he should distribute his movie free
across the internet.

Mike Isaksen

April 7th 07, 12:31 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
> That's part of the rationale for carbon credits.... Someone flies a
> relatively clean jet (or fires up a relatively clean refinery), and pays
> money to those who have relatively dirty ones.
> They the money and use it to clean the dirty ones up.
>
> The idea is that it's less expensive to improve the dirty ones than to get
> the same reduction in the ones that are already clean.
>

I thought the concept was opposite to that: If you upgrade or build to
better than the declared standard, the amount you under-polute gives you
credits which you can sell to the over-poluters. The over-poluters use those
bought credits to help reduce the monitary penalty they pay for poluting
over the standard. Thus the carrot and the stick, rather than just the
stick.

Dan Luke

April 7th 07, 12:38 AM

"flynrider via AviationKB.com" wrote:

>
> Have you seen the BBC's documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming
> Swindle"? It features many reputable scientists (that don't get paid by oil
> companies), and provides an insightful review of Gores charts and graphs by
> actual climatologists. They point out that the man-caused theory of global
> warming only works if you ignore the historical climate data that does not
> fit the model.
>
> I highly recommend it.

Hmphf.

From my favorite skeptic, The Amazing Randi:

===========================
"It turns out that producer Martin Durkin "edited" his graph material, to
produce a spurious conclusion by disregarding all information obtained after
1980 and "stretching out" the remaining results to fill up the graph space!

The UK/Channel 4 film was a purposeful sham. You'll find that those quoted in
the film are claiming they were
misled and deceived, and in view of this heavy evidence of blatant
misrepresentation - plus the fact that Channel 4 has previously had to make
public apologies for allowing Durkin to perpetrate a similar earlier fraud on
their facility - just why did they decide, in this case, to repeat this
blunder? One of those scientists interviewed, Dr. Carl Wunsch, professor of
Physical Oceanography at MIT, was shown as supporting the film's
anti-Global Warming thesis, but had no chance of seeing the film before it was
broadcast. When he saw the final product, and realized that his statements had
been cherry-picked out of context, Wunsch said:

'I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted
by the context in which they placed them. The movie was terrible propaganda.'
"
============================

There is a lot of bs out there on this subject.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Steven P. McNicoll

April 7th 07, 12:49 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you feel that government has no place in educating the nation's
> children? No place in prosecuting monopolies? No place in operating
> the NAS? No place in funding space research? No place in providing
> for public health? No place regulating labor practices? No place in
> international diplomacy? .... Interesting.
>

I support all activities of the federal government that are consistent with
the US Constitution and oppose all those that are not.

ManhattanMan

April 7th 07, 01:05 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> For instance, it is my understanding that Polar Bears are drowning
> because they are too exhausted to reach sea ice that has retreated to
> record levels. Should this result in a reduction in the Polar Bear
> population, it will cause native peoples of the polar latitudes to
> abandon their traditional ways of life.
>
Why is EVERYTHING referenced to people? How about the poor damn Polar
Bears! Personally, I think they're one of the most beautiful creatures out
there, especially considering their "home", and it's disappearing.

>
> You should really view the movie.

Yes, that's true. Although laced with overstressed "facts", some can NOT be
disputed. I personally have pictures of glaciers on two different
continents that had existed for centuries, taken ~ 25 years ago, that have
nearly vanished...

Jose

April 7th 07, 01:25 AM

> I recall one typing class where there were
> three or four students huddled around the teacher while the rest of
> them indulged in boisterous, disruptive behavior.

That's not a function of class size, that is a function of the
difference between Japanese and American values. You'd never see that
in Japan - the drive for conformity is too strong.

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

Jose

April 7th 07, 01:27 AM

> True, I was referring to the morality that existed in the US up until the 60s, not the Taliban. What a dumb comparison and you know it.

It's not a "dumb comparision" - it points out that
1: Prayer has nothing to do with morality.
2: What you support is prayer to =your= god, not prayer in general.

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

Orval Fairbairn

April 7th 07, 01:48 AM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:46:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> . net>:
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
> >> motion picture yet.
> >>
> >> Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.
> >>
> >
> >Does Gore take a different position in the film than he has elsewhere when
> >speaking on the issue?
> >
>
> It's not about Gore's position. It's about the overwhelming evidence
> presented.

Al Gore obviously "cherry picked" the information he presented. As I
posted before, he sounds like the late-night TV hucksters with their
infomercials.

If Gore really believed the stuff he is presenting, he would adjust his
own lifestyle accordingly.

Tony Cox

April 7th 07, 01:57 AM

> wrote in message news:
. com...
>
> Well Matt, you're quite incorrect. Please get yourself informed.
>
> Gore isn't telling you to go live in a cave.

http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=1006

> He's telling you that all of us need to take responsibility for the
> amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. That's all. It's
> just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
> Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
> to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
> that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.

In the 13th century, Greenland was a breadbasket, the Chinese
sailed the polar oceans and saw no ice, and sea levels were
hardly any different from what they are today. You should stop
idolizing Gore and his pliant band of "Scientainers" and start
thinking for yourself for a change. Anyone who says it's "just that
simple" is a fool.

That global warming is a result of man made CO2 emission is only a
*theory*. It may be true, it may be false. The only way to judge,
just like any other scientific theory, is if it makes predictions
which
can be tested, and if these predictions turn out to be true. So far,
all we have is a "fit to data" and wild extrapolations. Any scientist
can tell you that if you have enough adjustable parameters, you can
fit almost anything. These GW models are selective in scope (none
explain the warming trend that started in the late 18th century), and
selective in their predictions (hurricanes in 2005 are touted as
confirmation of global warming, but the 2006 season -- the mildest
since the 1920's -- are ignored). This, and the uncomfortable fact
that nay-sayers are have an uphill battle to obtain state funding, and
in some
instances are threatened with dismissal ought to be proof to anyone
that "science" has become politicized and its conclusions cannot now
be trusted. Direction is being established by "Scientainers" who are
more
interested in securing a free night in the Lincoln Bedroom than they
are in searching out the truth. The whole hyped-up mess borders on
"junk
science", and the self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientists who are
complicit in this
prostitution of a once-noble pursuit ought to be lynched.

> If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
> now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
> doing.

What, exactly, is so wrong with that?

Climate has changed in the past, and will change in fhe future. There
can be no debate on that, monkey boy. So get over it.

> Get it? Got it? Good. Aviation-free, sorry about that.

Oh for Christ's sake, don't be so damn pompous. How old
are you, anyway? You've got more to be sorry about than that
your post is "aviation-free".

ManhattanMan

April 7th 07, 02:53 AM

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> If Gore really believed the stuff he is presenting, he would adjust
> his own lifestyle accordingly.

Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the USA declaration of
independence, who coined the phrase "all men are created equal", yet was one
of the last of the founding fathers to grant his 200 slaves freedom, decades
later (in fact, I'm not sure he ever did before his death over 40 years
later). Would you say he was insincere with his noble aspirations, or just
a little weak in implimentation on a personal level?

Tony Cox

April 7th 07, 02:56 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in
> >:
> >
> >I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
> >late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.
>
> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.

Why are you so obsessed with this, Larry? About 1/3 of the
posts in this thread are yours! You're normally so sensible.

No one doubts that the earth is warming -- its been doing this
since at least the late 18th century -- but there are many steps
between this "fact" and us feeling good about having 100LL taxes
go up $10 (all politicians see this type of answer as the "solution").
For example,

1) You have to show climate warming is a bad thing.

2) You have to show that mankind's CO2 emissions are causing
it.

3) You have to propose a cost-effective mechanism to reduce CO2
concentration, and...

4) ...if that mechanism is reducing emissions, you have to enforce the
agreement amongst all countries that are currently polluting -- in
other
words, you have to solve the problem of the "tragedy of the commons".

Gore is a showman, not a scientist. I'm surprised you are so easily
taken in.

Bob Noel

April 7th 07, 03:28 AM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.

Why?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel

April 7th 07, 03:30 AM

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > I'll stick with science.
>
> Where do you get your science?

I'm not speaking for Steven, But I don't get my science from Hollywood

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

John Godwin

April 7th 07, 03:35 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> I would like to see it. Thanks.
>
I think some of it can be found on Google Video. YouTube version was
pulled, I believe, due to a copyright claim by Wag TV.

Check out:
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467>

--

Aluckyguess

April 7th 07, 04:29 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Today the government is funding a half billion dollars over five years
>> for research into the cause of childhood obesity while only 25% of
>> school children attend physical education classes.
>>
>
> It's because they eat too much and aren't active enough. I'd have happily
> told the government that for far less than half a billion dollars.
>
TV and the internet and Xbox. We could eat what ever we wanted as kids
and never go fat.

>
>

Dan Luke

April 7th 07, 05:47 AM

"Bob Noel" wrote:
>
>> > I'll stick with science.
>>
>> Where do you get your science?
>
> I'm not speaking for Steven, But I don't get my science from Hollywood

Where do you get your science?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Montblack

April 7th 07, 08:02 AM

("ManhattanMan" wrote)
> Why is EVERYTHING referenced to people? How about the poor damn Polar
> Bears! Personally, I think they're one of the most beautiful creatures
> out there, especially considering their "home", and it's disappearing.

Martian Polar Bears are hurting too, ....from what I understand.

Damn those Martian Land Rovers!

Montblack - the cute one

"For tomorrow may rain,
so I'll follow the sun"

LWG

April 7th 07, 01:33 PM

Careful. The GW nuts will just say that proves the point. The devastating
effects of GW are so extreme that you driving your SUV is destroying the
climate on Mars, too. The entire solar system is in danger.

The peasants need to reform their lives so that the elite can lead their
lives of wasteful excess.

More cake, anyone?

> Then there is the whole issue that the warming trend isn't even limited to
> Earth and that Mars is experiencing global warming as well.

Matt Whiting

April 7th 07, 05:57 PM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>>>> I'll stick with science.
>>> Where do you get your science?
>> I'm not speaking for Steven, But I don't get my science from Hollywood
>
> Where do you get your science?
>

I prefer people like this. The top hurricane forecaster in the US and
many, many years of experience in this field. Let me see, do I choose
to believe a politician with no scientific background who has a vested
interest in making a publicity scene for political purposes or someone
like this? Wow, what a tough decision! :-)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

John Godwin

April 7th 07, 06:09 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> I prefer people like this. The top hurricane forecaster in the US
> and many, many years of experience in this field. Let me see, do
> I choose to believe a politician with no scientific background who
> has a vested interest in making a publicity scene for political
> purposes or someone like this? Wow, what a tough decision! :-)

I thought the scientific mind of Al Gore invented the internet. :-))

--

Matt Whiting

April 7th 07, 06:54 PM

John Godwin wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> I prefer people like this. The top hurricane forecaster in the US
>> and many, many years of experience in this field. Let me see, do
>> I choose to believe a politician with no scientific background who
>> has a vested interest in making a publicity scene for political
>> purposes or someone like this? Wow, what a tough decision! :-)
>
> I thought the scientific mind of Al Gore invented the internet. :-))
>

That's right, I keep forgetting that. :-)

Matt

Cubdriver

April 7th 07, 10:50 PM

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:54:44 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>This system reduces the
>total pollution.

Yes, in the same way that paying $500 to a substitute enabled the rich
to get out of fighting the Civil War. In effect, they hired an
Irishman to do their fighting for them.

Thus Al Gore and Bono get to sleep well at night despite burning ten
or twenty times the amount of carbon used by the average householder.
Like the paid draft exemption, it is contemptible beyond imagination.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

LWG

April 8th 07, 02:30 AM

Why hasn't anyone taken this the next step? It's only the winners in life's
lottery, like Algore and the limolibs who have the money to purchase carbon
credits. That is not in keeping with the democratic principles of our
country. I propose a new government program to make sure that carbon
credits are distributed, free of charge, in accordance with the need of the
People. This country has adopted "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need." What is the impoverished person to do? His
disadvantaged status is no more his fault that the wealthy's more a result
of their efforts. The government must step to level the playing field, so
that the poor has similar rights to the necessities of life -- heat, light
and transportation, that the wealthy have. We have a federal food stamp
program to make sure no one is excluded from the right to become obese, why
shouldn't we make sure that the poor and middle class have the same rights
to burn fossil fuel as the wealthy?

> Thus Al Gore and Bono get to sleep well at night despite burning ten
> or twenty times the amount of carbon used by the average householder.
> Like the paid draft exemption, it is contemptible beyond imagination.
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

John Godwin

April 8th 07, 02:59 AM

Mary Katherine Ham has a good video about Carbon Credits on YouTube.
Check out:

<http://tinyurl.com/3xrgv7>

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> Why hasn't anyone taken this the next step? It's only the winners
> in life's lottery, like Algore and the limolibs who have the money
> to purchase carbon credits. That is not in keeping with the
> democratic principles of our country.
(snipped for brevity)

--

Larry Dighera

April 8th 07, 03:01 AM

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:30:43 -0400, "LWG" >
wrote in >:

>This country has adopted "From each according to his ability, to
>each according to his need."

Are you sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
(or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875
Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea
that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the
best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each
person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance
with their need, irrespective of what they have produced. In the
Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the
abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society
will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy
everyone's needs.

Perhaps you're thinking of another country.

Matt Whiting

April 8th 07, 03:11 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:30:43 -0400, "LWG" >
> wrote in >:
>
>> This country has adopted "From each according to his ability, to
>> each according to his need."
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need
> From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
> (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875
> Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea
> that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the
> best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each
> person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance
> with their need, irrespective of what they have produced. In the
> Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the
> abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society
> will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy
> everyone's needs.
>
> Perhaps you're thinking of another country.

No, unfortunately, he has it right. This is what America has largely
degenerated to over the last several decades.

Matt

Jose

April 8th 07, 04:10 AM

>> This statement presumes that public education produces stupidity.
> That is precisely what I am "presuming".

I would say stupidity comes =despite= education, public or otherwise.
Remember that students in the private education system are
self-selected; those in public education are not. If there were no
public education, for many of those there simply would be =no= education.

> Well I'm glad you are happy with it Jose.

I didn't say I was happy with it. Just that I disagree that it
"produces stupidity". It produces whatever the students put into it.

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

Jose

April 8th 07, 04:11 AM

> I thought the concept was opposite to that: If you upgrade or build to
> better than the declared standard, the amount you under-polute gives you
> credits which you can sell to the over-poluters.

You're right - I had it backwards. But the theory is the same - reduce
total pollution by doing so where it is most cost-effective to do so.

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

VE5JL

April 8th 07, 04:40 AM

Larry, Mr. Gore is coming to Regina and a local blog was offering $50.00 for
a photo of it at the Regina airport. If I had the tail number I could track
it on its way here.

The books on the site are published and sold by myself. The ISBN numbers are
issued by the Government of Canada and I have not listed them elsewhere. I'm
not sure if Amazon lists all ISBN numbered books or just the ones that they
sell.

Also I don't get to read all of the posts on here so if you have any other
questions feel free to go back to my site and email me.

Joe

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:00 GMT, "ve5jl" > wrote
> in <kh8Rh.32585$6m4.28180@pd7urf1no>:
>
> >Does anyone know the tail number of or have pictures of Al Gore's private
> >jet?
> >
> >I've looked on a few major airplane photo sites with no luck.
> >
> >Thanks in advance
> >
> >VE5JL.
> >
>
> Dear Joseph Lockhart,
>
> What is the reason for your attempt to find a photograph of former US
> Vice President Gore's alleged "private jet?"
>
> Why is it that I am unable to find by ISBN nor title either of your
> two books offered on your web site <http://www.ve5jl.com> on
> Amazon.com nor BookFinder.com?
>
> Have you completed any more of your airman's flight training other
> than ground school yet? Have you joined the ranks of Canada's 40,000
> airmen yet?
>
>
>

John Galban

April 8th 07, 10:28 AM

On Apr 6, 3:49 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> However, it is immaterial to me whether man-made C02 is the root cause
> of climate change or not. Regardless of the cause, it's going to be a
> different planet if global warming continues.

Of course it is. Nobody denies that it has been getting warmer for
the last 30 yrs. That data is irrefutable. It is also irrefutable
that in the 30 yrs. before that, it was getting steadily cooler (hence
the "global ice age" scare in the 70s). The Vikings were once
farming on what is now permafrost and an icecap. After that, there
was a mini-ice age that lasted hundreds of years. It's always a
different planet.

If it's immaterial to you that CO2 is the cause, then I'm missing
the point here. The people who want to spend trillions to "fix" the
CO2/global warming problem aren't actually going to "fix" anything.
That doesn't concern you? Now if someone can come up with a way to
turn the sun down a few degrees, then it might be worth spending the
money. On second thought, that would probably open some other can of
worms. The planetary weather system is far too complex for anyone to
understand all of the variables that go into its operation.

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

Bob Noel

April 8th 07, 01:01 PM

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> >> Where do you get your science?
> >
> > I'm not speaking for Steven, But I don't get my science from Hollywood
>
> Where do you get your science?

Science references and resources

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Dan Luke

April 8th 07, 01:30 PM

"Bob Noel" wrote:

>> Where do you get your science?
>
> Science references and resources

Could you be more specific?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

kontiki

April 8th 07, 02:29 PM

There you go again... trying to obfuscate the issue with actual facts
and logic.

Bob Noel

April 8th 07, 05:48 PM

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> >> Where do you get your science?
> >
> > Science references and resources
>
> Could you be more specific?

why? the question wasn't specific. Which "science" are you
referring to?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 8th 07, 08:14 PM

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 3:49 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> However, it is immaterial to me whether man-made C02 is the root cause
>> of climate change or not. Regardless of the cause, it's going to be a
>> different planet if global warming continues.
>
> Of course it is. Nobody denies that it has been getting warmer for
> the last 30 yrs. That data is irrefutable. It is also irrefutable
> that in the 30 yrs. before that, it was getting steadily cooler (hence
> the "global ice age" scare in the 70s). The Vikings were once
> farming on what is now permafrost and an icecap. After that, there
> was a mini-ice age that lasted hundreds of years. It's always a
> different planet.
>
> If it's immaterial to you that CO2 is the cause, then I'm missing
> the point here. The people who want to spend trillions to "fix" the
> CO2/global warming problem aren't actually going to "fix" anything.
> That doesn't concern you? Now if someone can come up with a way to
> turn the sun down a few degrees, then it might be worth spending the
> money. On second thought, that would probably open some other can of
> worms. The planetary weather system is far too complex for anyone to
> understand all of the variables that go into its operation.
>

Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
nobody argues with:

1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).

2. Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.

3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950--.

4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.

From #2 we calculate that the Earth's surface area is 0.8 billion billion

square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion billion
pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04 per cent is
2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is 1,200 billion
tons. Let's call this fact #5:

5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950; 3,600
billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.

6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) releases
200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.

Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if every
molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production stayed in
the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the post-1950 change to
be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus 200 years takes us back
to before the Industrial Revolution, it means that if every CO2 molecule
from every factory, car, steam engine, barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast
that ever was since the first liberal climbed down out of a tree right up
until today was still in the atmosphere. It still wouldn't account for the
change in CO2 since 1950.

Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any piddling
200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12 yearsfor the average
CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the atmosphere.

Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with and
still claim to be a reasoning creature:

8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more than
12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the observed
change in CO2 levels.

9. Entirely shutting off civilizationor even killing everybodycould only
have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such thing--.

That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:

Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want to
end civilization?

Q-2. Since humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up, isn't
it time to start wondering about what is?

L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 8th 07, 08:16 PM

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.50...
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> I prefer people like this. The top hurricane forecaster in the US
>> and many, many years of experience in this field. Let me see, do
>> I choose to believe a politician with no scientific background who
>> has a vested interest in making a publicity scene for political
>> purposes or someone like this? Wow, what a tough decision! :-)
>
> I thought the scientific mind of Al Gore invented the internet. :-))
>
Big :~)

History of Arpanet http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.html Arpanet
Connection Maps http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/history/arpamaps/ which
both show that Arpanet was alive and well when Al was still a tobacco
farmer in Tennessee and long before he was elected to congress.

Arpanet was pervasive in the US and even had links to the UK by 1980 (a
year before Al's funding supposedly created the internet)
http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/historical.html

And for some unknown reason, the site of the agency that controlled
Arpanet, http://www.darpa.mil/ ,doesn't mention Al as the creator or the
instigator or even as a guy that occasionally brought the engineers coffee
and jelly doughnuts, maybe it has something to do with Al being TEN when
DARPA was founded.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 8th 07, 08:39 PM

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> There you go again... trying to obfuscate the issue with actual facts
> and logic.

Bastiges

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 8th 07, 08:40 PM

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:57:54 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>> >
>> >I have seen parts of it. He reminds me of those "infomercial" guys on
>> >late-night TV pitching slicer/dicers.
>>
>> Be that as it may, it is difficult to refute the fact that the climate
>> is warming when faced with overwhelming facts that support that
>> contention. I don't believe anyone is able to refute that.
>
> Why are you so obsessed with this, Larry? About 1/3 of the
> posts in this thread are yours! You're normally so sensible.

Larry? Sensible?

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 8th 07, 08:40 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.
>
> Why?
Fundemental law of science.

Bob Noel

April 8th 07, 09:17 PM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> >> It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.
> >
> > Why?
> Fundemental law of science.

where is this proven or stated as an assumption?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Dan Luke

April 9th 07, 12:10 AM

"Bob Noel" wrote:

>> >> Where do you get your science?
>> >
>> > Science references and resources
>>
>> Could you be more specific?
>
> why? the question wasn't specific. Which "science" are you
> referring to?

It's a serious question.

I'm interested in where other laymen like me get the information on which to
base their opinions about scientific controversies. Almost everything I find
out there on this subject seems to be coming from left- or right-wing axe
grinders:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

http://www.cei.org/sections/subsection.cfm?section=3

I'm looking for something as free as possible from political cant. It's
starting to feel like a hopeless search.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 9th 07, 05:07 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> >> It thought it was impossible to prove a negative.
>> >
>> > Why?
>> Fundemental law of science.
>
> where is this proven or stated as an assumption?
>
Well, gee...starting with Aristotle's law of contradiction about 2500 years
ago...

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 9th 07, 05:26 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>
>>> >> Where do you get your science?
>>> >
>>> > Science references and resources
>>>
>>> Could you be more specific?
>>
>> why? the question wasn't specific. Which "science" are you
>> referring to?
>
> It's a serious question.
>
> I'm interested in where other laymen like me get the information on which
> to base their opinions about scientific controversies. Almost everything
> I find out there on this subject seems to be coming from left- or
> right-wing axe grinders:
>
> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/
>
> http://www.cei.org/sections/subsection.cfm?section=3
>
> I'm looking for something as free as possible from political cant. It's
> starting to feel like a hopeless search.

Well, CEI is an ECONOMIC organization...

IAC, your remarks sounds something akin to the old "Jewish Science", or
"Bourgeoisie Science" that brought about Lymarckianism.

Tony Cox

April 9th 07, 09:21 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message news:
...
>
> I'm interested in where other laymen like me get the information on which to
> base their opinions about scientific controversies. Almost everything I find
> out there on this subject seems to be coming from left- or right-wing axe
> grinders:

I'm hardly a layman, but here's how you should assess the
evidence. There are two issues. One is the evidence
itself; the other is the conclusions to be drawn from it.
These are frequently muddled up, especially in the popular
press, and also, unfortunately in the scientific literature.

The first thing you can dismiss is the doom-mongering
headlines about species extinction, rampant disease,
and apocalyptic hurricanes. These are *corollaries*,
and would be true (assuming the science is exact) if
the earth were to warm in any manner, not just through
human actions. They might make alarmist headlines, but they
should form no part in anyone's opinion as to the validity
of man-made global warming itself. The fact that these
corollaries are given prominence in the IPCC report should
throw up a red flag that they are being touted to deflect
detailed analysis of the underlying science.

Although I gave you a rough time recently, I've no
particular opinion one way or another on man-made
global warming, nor any detailed knowledge of the
mechanisms used in the various models. But I *do*
have over 20 years experience in modeling physical
phenomena & I know what to look for in assessing
the validity of any proposed model.

Here's what we do know. First, and obviously, we're
all here discussing this. From this you can conclude
that the claims that we risk a "runaway" greenhouse
effect are alarmist claptrap. Not impossible, but very
very unlikely. The Earth clearly has feedback mechanisms
which have dealt with enormous quantities of CO2
without throwing us into a climate like Venus -- the
Philippines eruption in 89 (?) belched out the equivalent
of 3 years of man-made CO2 in just a few weeks, and
that was a tiny one. So you can forget that.

Second, the climate has been changing and appears
always to have done so. The direct evidence for this
goes back only 200 years or so. Before that, evidence
is less certain than simply looking at the thermometer --
it is based upon extrapolations from the historical
record (rivers freezing, crop yields etc.) Before that,
one can extrapolate from species range and tree rings.
Assess recent evidence carefully -- one Cambridge
professor spent a weekend looking a "global warming"
and decided recent warming could be explained by
man-made "heat" generated in the cities where the
measurements were taken. Cities are typically 5 degrees
hotter these days, and all this must be corrected for
carefully if one is looking for increases in the 0.5 degree
range.

Assuming this is done correctly, it appears that we are
currently in an up-turn which started around 1800. This
correlates with man-made CO2 only over the last 30 years.
Before that, we know that other factors were influencing
climate to an even greater extent than what we observe
today -- in the medieval warming period around the time
of the Black Death, temperatures in Europe were 3-5
degrees warmer than what they are now & sea level
differences (corrected, for example, for local factors such
as the rotation of the British Isles about the Exe-Tees line)
went unreported by historians.

With that, you are equipped to review the evidence in the
TGGWS documentary. Gore's junk is simply laughable.
The TGGWS made several testable statements which you
should research to assess its validity. I only found one thing
that I thought nonsense -- their claim that a major source of
CO2 was leaves decomposing, clearly a seasonable thing that
is balanced by new growth in the spring. Anyway, here are
the claims upon which their theory rests.

1) That the man-made GW (MMGW) hypothesis predicts
enhanced stratospheric temperatures, and since these are not
observed, the hypothesis is invalid.

2) That the ice core record shows a correlation between
CO2 and temperature, with the latter trailing the former. If
true, CO2 has no measurable effect on climate whether it is
man made or natural.

3) That global average temperatures correlate with sunspot
activity, and so temperature increases are not predicated on
CO2 levels to any measurable extent. They even propose a
mechanism for this, explaining quite reasonably that sunspots
are a visual indication of the strength of the solar magnetic field,
which in turn deflects cosmic rays, which in turn reduces the
number of nucleation sites in the upper atmosphere around which
clouds form. Pilots will, of course, remember that for clouds to
form you need both super-saturated air and a nucleation site
around which water droplets can condense.

Verify or disprove these statements and you'll have your answer.

Of course, if that's all proved false and MMGW is a fact, it
doesn't necessarily follow that the way to solve the problem is
by reduced emission. But that's another argument, and might
need to be addressed *regardless* of where the blame for
warming is pinned. Of course, if GW isn't correlated to CO2, it
makes no sense to reduce emissions in any case.

Dan Luke

April 9th 07, 10:28 PM

"Tony Cox" wrote:

>> I'm interested in where other laymen like me get the information on which
>> to
>> base their opinions about scientific controversies. Almost everything I
>> find
>> out there on this subject seems to be coming from left- or right-wing axe
>> grinders:
>
> I'm hardly a layman, but here's how you should assess the
> evidence. There are two issues. One is the evidence
> itself; the other is the conclusions to be drawn from it.
> These are frequently muddled up, especially in the popular
> press, and also, unfortunately in the scientific literature.

<sigh> All right. I retract my withdrawal from the conversation and I'll try
again with an attempt at staying cool and humble.

>
> The first thing you can dismiss is the doom-mongering
> headlines about species extinction, rampant disease,
> and apocalyptic hurricanes. These are *corollaries*,
> and would be true (assuming the science is exact) if
> the earth were to warm in any manner, not just through
> human actions. They might make alarmist headlines, but they
> should form no part in anyone's opinion as to the validity
> of man-made global warming itself. The fact that these
> corollaries are given prominence in the IPCC report should
> throw up a red flag that they are being touted to deflect
> detailed analysis of the underlying science.

I dismiss them, anyway. I'm used to out-of-context distortion of scientific
discoveries by the popular media. But I'm convinced that they are born of
the need to peddle ads, not cover up weak science. How can weak science be
hidden from the whole scientific community? How does it escape the
peer-review filter? Are we to believe in a vast conspiracy? The nay-sayers
are becoming fewer and fewer. Are all the others lying?

> Although I gave you a rough time recently, I've no
> particular opinion one way or another on man-made
> global warming, nor any detailed knowledge of the
> mechanisms used in the various models. But I *do*
> have over 20 years experience in modeling physical
> phenomena & I know what to look for in assessing
> the validity of any proposed model.

But Tony, if you don't understand the mechanisms, how can you critcise the
science?

> Here's what we do know. First, and obviously, we're
> all here discussing this. From this you can conclude
> that the claims that we risk a "runaway" greenhouse
> effect are alarmist claptrap. Not impossible, but very
> very unlikely. The Earth clearly has feedback mechanisms
> which have dealt with enormous quantities of CO2
> without throwing us into a climate like Venus -- the
> Philippines eruption in 89 (?) belched out the equivalent
> of 3 years of man-made CO2 in just a few weeks, and
> that was a tiny one. So you can forget that.

What about the claim that volcanoes at the same time produce enormous
quantities of persistent sulfur aerosols that reflect the solar IR before it
can be trapped by the CO2?

>
> Second, the climate has been changing and appears
> always to have done so. The direct evidence for this
> goes back only 200 years or so. Before that, evidence
> is less certain than simply looking at the thermometer --
> it is based upon extrapolations from the historical
> record (rivers freezing, crop yields etc.) Before that,
> one can extrapolate from species range and tree rings.
> Assess recent evidence carefully -- one Cambridge
> professor spent a weekend looking a "global warming"
> and decided recent warming could be explained by
> man-made "heat" generated in the cities where the
> measurements were taken. Cities are typically 5 degrees
> hotter these days, and all this must be corrected for
> carefully if one is looking for increases in the 0.5 degree
> range.

I have seen this claim and seen it refuted by reference to data produced by
other means.

> Assuming this is done correctly, it appears that we are
> currently in an up-turn which started around 1800. This
> correlates with man-made CO2 only over the last 30 years.
> Before that, we know that other factors were influencing
> climate to an even greater extent than what we observe
> today -- in the medieval warming period around the time
> of the Black Death, temperatures in Europe were 3-5
> degrees warmer than what they are now & sea level
> differences (corrected, for example, for local factors such
> as the rotation of the British Isles about the Exe-Tees line)
> went unreported by historians.

The refutation I have seen of this is that world-wide warming for that period
is not supported by evidence. Therefore, sea levels would not have risen.
In fact, the absence of a sea level rise is evidence that the warming was
*not* global, since sea levels would *have* to have risen if it were.

> With that, you are equipped to review the evidence in the
> TGGWS documentary. Gore's junk is simply laughable.
> The TGGWS made several testable statements which you
> should research to assess its validity. I only found one thing
> that I thought nonsense -- their claim that a major source of
> CO2 was leaves decomposing, clearly a seasonable thing that
> is balanced by new growth in the spring. Anyway, here are
> the claims upon which their theory rests.
>
> 1) That the man-made GW (MMGW) hypothesis predicts
> enhanced stratospheric temperatures, and since these are not
> observed, the hypothesis is invalid.

I've seen a refutation of this, but I can't find it. If I do, I'll post it
for criticism.

> 2) That the ice core record shows a correlation between
> CO2 and temperature, with the latter trailing the former. If
> true, CO2 has no measurable effect on climate whether it is
> man made or natural.

What about the claim that CO2 and temperature rises are reinforcing, and that
the present unusual position of CO2 leading temperature is one of the
arguments for AGW?

> 3) That global average temperatures correlate with sunspot
> activity, and so temperature increases are not predicated on
> CO2 levels to any measurable extent. They even propose a
> mechanism for this, explaining quite reasonably that sunspots
> are a visual indication of the strength of the solar magnetic field,
> which in turn deflects cosmic rays, which in turn reduces the
> number of nucleation sites in the upper atmosphere around which
> clouds form. Pilots will, of course, remember that for clouds to
> form you need both super-saturated air and a nucleation site
> around which water droplets can condense.

Another one I've seen refuted. I've got some more digging to do. No doubt
you'll be able to refute the refutation, and I'll find a refutation of the
refutation of the refutation and on and on...

> Verify or disprove these statements and you'll have your answer.
>
> Of course, if that's all proved false and MMGW is a fact, it
> doesn't necessarily follow that the way to solve the problem is
> by reduced emission. But that's another argument, and might
> need to be addressed *regardless* of where the blame for
> warming is pinned. Of course, if GW isn't correlated to CO2, it
> makes no sense to reduce emissions in any case.

Let me at least state that I have no confidence in the ability of the human
race to deal effectively with so enormous and complex an issue. On the
contrary, I expect a great deal of noise and hand-waving, waste and
bureaucracy, and a general tendency to muddle on regardless.

If human generated environmental catastrophe is ahead--and I believe it is
sooner or later, given the species' inability to understand that the planet's
natural systems are not indestructible--it won't do much good to predict it.
People gotta eat, people gotta have places to live, every new generation
expects to have more stuff than the last one, and there are more people all
the time.

What will happen will happen; mass extinctions are part of life on Planet
Earth, and there's little reason to believe we humans are immune. Most
likely I'll be long gone before anything big happens, but in the meantime,
I'm interested in the current controversy. Thanks for your input.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Tony Cox

April 10th 07, 04:21 AM

> "Tony Cox" wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm hardly a layman, but here's how you should assess the
> > evidence. There are two issues. One is the evidence
> > itself; the other is the conclusions to be drawn from it.
> > These are frequently muddled up, especially in the popular
> > press, and also, unfortunately in the scientific literature.
>
> <sigh> All right. I retract my withdrawal from the conversation and I'll try
> again with an attempt at staying cool and humble.

I didn't know you had. I thought you were asking how to
assess the evidence. I'm happy to help. And I doubt you'll
stay humble, nor would I wish you to!

> > Although I gave you a rough time recently, I've no
> > particular opinion one way or another on man-made
> > global warming, nor any detailed knowledge of the
> > mechanisms used in the various models. But I *do*
> > have over 20 years experience in modeling physical
> > phenomena & I know what to look for in assessing
> > the validity of any proposed model.
>
> But Tony, if you don't understand the mechanisms, how can you critcise the
> science?

I claim to understand the _modeling_ process, not the
details of their models. Modeling any phenomena is a
complex business. Models that are over-parameterized can
fit just about anything. Models that extrapolate, especially
time series phenomena, are doubly suspect. Models that
deliberately choose sub-sets of data to fit and ignore the
entire data available to them better have a good justification
if they're not to be dismissed as a put-up job.

I'd say the GW models are over parameterized, attempt
ambitious extrapolation, and have a track record of
dismissing data that they can't account for (like that in
the medieval warming period).

A good model makes predictions that can be tested.
One that I know of -- predicting increasing temperatures
in the stratosphere -- it has apparently failed. The others involve
climate variation which can't be measured until after
the proponents have conveniently retired. This
doesn't give one much confidence.

> > Here's what we do know. First, and obviously, we're
> > all here discussing this. From this you can conclude
> > that the claims that we risk a "runaway" greenhouse
> > effect are alarmist claptrap. Not impossible, but very
> > very unlikely. The Earth clearly has feedback mechanisms
> > which have dealt with enormous quantities of CO2
> > without throwing us into a climate like Venus -- the
> > Philippines eruption in 89 (?) belched out the equivalent
> > of 3 years of man-made CO2 in just a few weeks, and
> > that was a tiny one. So you can forget that.
>
>
> What about the claim that volcanoes at the same time produce enormous
> quantities of persistent sulfur aerosols that reflect the solar IR before it
> can be trapped by the CO2?

Given that volcanic emissions differ in constituents, I'd
find it remarkable that each major eruption has produced
just the right combination of sulphur and CO2 to make
a "zero sum" on the climate. Further, sulphur aerosols drop
out of the atmosphere quickly, whereas CO2 remains for
much longer periods of time.

So on the face of it, this claim doesn't stand up.

> > Assuming this is done correctly, it appears that we are
> > currently in an up-turn which started around 1800. This
> > correlates with man-made CO2 only over the last 30 years.
> > Before that, we know that other factors were influencing
> > climate to an even greater extent than what we observe
> > today -- in the medieval warming period around the time
> > of the Black Death, temperatures in Europe were 3-5
> > degrees warmer than what they are now & sea level
> > differences (corrected, for example, for local factors such
> > as the rotation of the British Isles about the Exe-Tees line)
> > went unreported by historians.
>
> The refutation I have seen of this is that world-wide warming for that period
> is not supported by evidence. Therefore, sea levels would not have risen.
> In fact, the absence of a sea level rise is evidence that the warming was
> *not* global, since sea levels would *have* to have risen if it were.

Well, the warming in Northern Europe during the 13th century is
very well documented. It is hard to imagine this phenomena
being localized. You're saying it couldn't be global because the
sea level didn't rise? That seems to be a reach. The population
data for China indicates a 3-fold increase in from 1000 to 1200,
consistent with the population rise from increased crop yields evident
in Northern Europe. Where,exactly, do you think global warming
didn't actually occur?

So on the face of it, this claim doesn't stand up either.

>
>
> > With that, you are equipped to review the evidence in the
> > TGGWS documentary. Gore's junk is simply laughable.
> > The TGGWS made several testable statements which you
> > should research to assess its validity. I only found one thing
> > that I thought nonsense -- their claim that a major source of
> > CO2 was leaves decomposing, clearly a seasonable thing that
> > is balanced by new growth in the spring. Anyway, here are
> > the claims upon which their theory rests.
> >
> > 1) That the man-made GW (MMGW) hypothesis predicts
> > enhanced stratospheric temperatures, and since these are not
> > observed, the hypothesis is invalid.
>
> I've seen a refutation of this, but I can't find it. If I do, I'll post it
> for criticism.

Yes. You do that.

>
> > 2) That the ice core record shows a correlation between
> > CO2 and temperature, with the latter trailing the former. If
> > true, CO2 has no measurable effect on climate whether it is
> > man made or natural.
>
> What about the claim that CO2 and temperature rises are reinforcing, and that
> the present unusual position of CO2 leading temperature is one of the
> arguments for AGW?

My description had a typo. CO2 trails temperature. Therefore
there can be no coupling between CO2 and temperature, if
TGGWS is correct.

>
> > 3) That global average temperatures correlate with sunspot
> > activity, and so temperature increases are not predicated on
> > CO2 levels to any measurable extent. They even propose a
> > mechanism for this, explaining quite reasonably that sunspots
> > are a visual indication of the strength of the solar magnetic field,
> > which in turn deflects cosmic rays, which in turn reduces the
> > number of nucleation sites in the upper atmosphere around which
> > clouds form. Pilots will, of course, remember that for clouds to
> > form you need both super-saturated air and a nucleation site
> > around which water droplets can condense.
>
> Another one I've seen refuted. I've got some more digging to do. No doubt
> you'll be able to refute the refutation, and I'll find a refutation of the
> refutation of the refutation and on and on...

Good. You do that digging.

>
> > Verify or disprove these statements and you'll have your answer.
> >
> > Of course, if that's all proved false and MMGW is a fact, it
> > doesn't necessarily follow that the way to solve the problem is
> > by reduced emission. But that's another argument, and might
> > need to be addressed *regardless* of where the blame for
> > warming is pinned. Of course, if GW isn't correlated to CO2, it
> > makes no sense to reduce emissions in any case.
>
> Let me at least state that I have no confidence in the ability of the human
> race to deal effectively with so enormous and complex an issue. On the
> contrary, I expect a great deal of noise and hand-waving, waste and
> bureaucracy, and a general tendency to muddle on regardless.

What a pessimist. I have no such doubts.

Dan Luke

April 10th 07, 02:19 PM

"Tony Cox" wrote:

> Good. You do that digging.

In progress. It is a very deep pile to dig in, and a great deal of it is
political fertilizer.

>> Let me at least state that I have no confidence in the ability of the
>> human
>> race to deal effectively with so enormous and complex an issue. On the
>> contrary, I expect a great deal of noise and hand-waving, waste and
>> bureaucracy, and a general tendency to muddle on regardless.
>
> What a pessimist. I have no such doubts.

The record of human societies attempting to "fix" things makes you
optimistic?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 10th 07, 03:12 PM

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> I claim to understand the _modeling_ process, not the
> details of their models. Modeling any phenomena is a
> complex business. Models that are over-parameterized can
> fit just about anything. Models that extrapolate, especially
> time series phenomena, are doubly suspect. Models that
> deliberately choose sub-sets of data to fit and ignore the
> entire data available to them better have a good justification
> if they're not to be dismissed as a put-up job.
>
> I'd say the GW models are over parameterized, attempt
> ambitious extrapolation, and have a track record of
> dismissing data that they can't account for (like that in
> the medieval warming period).

In all the GW models, none, zero, zilch, nada... when run in reverse even
remotely models the present or past.

That's a standard test of a model.

Not one GW "scientist" has ever done a public test in that manner.

One dude, though, threw a fit when asked to show his data nad methods, that
was paid for by the taxpayer. Oddly, THAT form of politicalization is never
mentioned in the MSM.

Dan Luke

April 10th 07, 03:46 PM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> politicalization

http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007#item01

Dan Luke

April 10th 07, 03:51 PM

BTW, Tony, what about this post from Barrow?

============================

Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
nobody argues with:

1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).

2. Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.

3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950--.

4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.

From #2 we calculate that the Earth's surface area is 0.8 billion billion

square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion billion
pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04 per cent is
2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is 1,200 billion
tons. Let's call this fact #5:

5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950; 3,600
billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.

6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

[eh?]

7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) releases
200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.

Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if every
molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production stayed in
the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the post-1950 change to
be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus 200 years takes us back
to before the Industrial Revolution, it means that if every CO2 molecule
from every factory, car, steam engine, barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast
that ever was since the first liberal climbed down out of a tree right up
until today was still in the atmosphere. It still wouldn't account for the
change in CO2 since 1950.

Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any piddling
200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12 yearsfor the average
CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the atmosphere.

Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with and
still claim to be a reasoning creature:

8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more than
12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the observed
change in CO2 levels.

9. Entirely shutting off civilizationor even killing everybodycould only
have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such thing--.

That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:

Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want to
end civilization?

Q-2. Since humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up, isn't
it time to start wondering about what is?

L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

========================

Don Tabor

April 10th 07, 05:03 PM

On 9 Apr 2007 20:21:55 -0700, "Tony Cox" > wrote:

>Well, the warming in Northern Europe during the 13th century is
>very well documented. It is hard to imagine this phenomena
>being localized. You're saying it couldn't be global because the
>sea level didn't rise? That seems to be a reach.

Sea levels did not rise much during the Medieval Warming because we
have pretty much run out of potential rise. Even if all the glaciers
other than the central Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets melt, plus
the expansion we could get from thermal expansion of the oceans with
the IPCC worst case 11 degree F temperature air temperature rise,
seas could rise by only about a meter. That's all there is, at that
point the rise would stop.

The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets could add another 7 and 65
meters respectively, but are all above the snow line and will never
melt at the predicted temperatures. Melting them would require a
temperature rise of 68 degrees F. No model predicts that, and if it
should happen, rising seas would be the least of our worries.

Both actually GAIN ice at current and predicted temperatures and
after we run out of rise, sea levels will gradually fall as ice
accumulates in Antarctica.

Don

Jim Logajan

April 10th 07, 07:04 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> BTW, Tony, what about this post from Barrow?
>
> ============================
>
> Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
> nobody argues with:
[...]
> 5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950;
> 3,600 billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.
>
> 6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.
>
> 7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.)
> releases 200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.
>
> Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if
> every molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production
> stayed in the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the
> post-1950 change to be matched.

The evidence is clear that something is wrong with the above claims.

The ratio of carbon isotopes C-12, C-13, and C-14 found in fossil fuels and
the ocean are known and provide tell-tale "signatures". The ratio of those
carbon isotopes in the atmosphere have been measured with respect to time
and the isotopic evidence indicates the increase of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is most probably due to the burning of fossil fuels.

(The first person to use isotopic ratios to determine the source of
atmospheric carbon dioxide was Hans Suess as far back as 1955. In
particular, the dilution of C-14 due to fossil fuels is known as the Suess
Effect.)

Steve Foley

April 10th 07, 07:13 PM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .

>
> The evidence is clear that something is wrong with the above claims.

Some girls came to my door last night selling candy to save the Panda's from
Global Warming. (true)

Should I have bought some?

Jim Logajan

April 10th 07, 07:51 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> "Tony Cox" > wrote:
>> I'd say the GW models are over parameterized, attempt
>> ambitious extrapolation, and have a track record of
>> dismissing data that they can't account for (like that in
>> the medieval warming period).
>
> In all the GW models, none, zero, zilch, nada... when run in reverse
> even remotely models the present or past.
>
> That's a standard test of a model.

Which models are you claiming fail this test?

> Not one GW "scientist" has ever done a public test in that manner.

Male bovine fecal matter. Not only do they try to run tests with historical
initial conditions and compare with historical observations, but Hansen ran
his climate models 20 years ago and within the range of experimental error
the temperatures observed over that period are rising as his model
predicted:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf

By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
available by following the links from this page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

> One dude, though, threw a fit when asked to show his data nad methods,
> that was paid for by the taxpayer. Oddly, THAT form of
> politicalization is never mentioned in the MSM.

I presume you mean Micheal Mann, co-author of the paper "Global-scale
temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries.
Nature 392:779–87" by Mann, Hughes and Bradley. The source code for that
was eventually released. Several problems were found with the code.

And if you do a Google search for "source code" and "climate" "model" you
should find enough hits to keep you busy for a while.

Jim Logajan

April 10th 07, 08:13 PM

"Tony Cox" > wrote:
> I claim to understand the _modeling_ process, not the
> details of their models. Modeling any phenomena is a
> complex business.

If you know the difference between an initial-value problem and a boundary-
value problem then you understand the difference between climate modeling
and weather modeling. If not, then it is because you have not had training
in a physical science, differential equations, and numerical analysis.

To make an analogy using aviation content, predicting weather is like
predicting the details of the formation of turbulent flow over an airframe.
It's very sensitive to initial conditions. On the other hand, predicting
climate is like predicting the stall angle of a wing. The specific details
of the turbulent flow are not vital to determining the answer - because the
stall angle is a macro averaged effect.

Another analogy sometimes used is boiling a pot of water over a fire.
Predicting weather is like predicting when and where a bubble will form in
that pot. Predicting climate is like predicting how long the water will
take to boil off - or (trivially) what the average temperature of the water
is during the boil.

> A good model makes predictions that can be tested.
> One that I know of -- predicting increasing temperatures
> in the stratosphere -- it has apparently failed. The others involve
> climate variation which can't be measured until after
> the proponents have conveniently retired. This
> doesn't give one much confidence.

Um, Dr. James Hansen is not yet retired. How do you account for the
correlation between observations and the temperature changes his model
predicted some 20 years ago?