I have an opinion on global warming!

[Jim Logajan]

But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to more
appropriate forums.

Jim "naive and hopeless optimist" Logajan

[Dan Luke]

"Jim Logajan" wrote:

> But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
> piloting I'm not going to share it.

Me neither.

Had a great flight home from Birmingham yesterday; 25 kt tailwind!

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 6, 11:46 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
> piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
> can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to more
> appropriate forums.
>
> Jim "naive and hopeless optimist" Logajan

I only wish that were true. We are not far off from having GA
regulated in the name of global warming. Limiting flight hours, days
flown, etc is a very, very likely scenario. Almost any freedom can be
taken away if you put a "Global Warming" tag on it.

-Robert

[kontiki]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
> piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
> can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to more
> appropriate forums.
>
> Jim "naive and hopeless optimist" Logajan

Jim, if you think that the 'religion' of global warming does not or
will not affect your flying, or th your freedom to fly you are naive.

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> Had a great flight home from Birmingham yesterday; 25 kt tailwind!


This is a thread about not posting in another thread about AlGore and global
warming. Your piloting reference was clearly off topic here - but no OT in
your subject line. Hmm?


Montblack :-)

[Jim Logajan]

"Montblack" > wrote:
> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>> Had a great flight home from Birmingham yesterday; 25 kt tailwind!
>
>
> This is a thread about not posting in another thread about AlGore and
> global warming. Your piloting reference was clearly off topic here -
> but no OT in your subject line. Hmm?

Ever meta-subject you didn't like?

;-)

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:

> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>> Had a great flight home from Birmingham yesterday; 25 kt tailwind!
>
>
> This is a thread about not posting in another thread about AlGore and global
> warming. Your piloting reference was clearly off topic here - but no OT in
> your subject line. Hmm?

Well, it *did* get a lot warmar as we got close to Mobile...

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
> piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
> can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to more
> appropriate forums.

I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
*ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RomeoMike]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
> chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
> complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
> *ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Here I sit in the southwest; it's already 90 deg. outside. The globe
must be warming faster than they say. Your statement and mine equally
meaningless and narrow.

[[email protected]]

On 6 Apr, 23:24, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
> > piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
> > can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to more
> > appropriate forums.
>
> I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
> chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
> complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
> *ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.

Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
increases in the energy of weather systems.
No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
everywhere all of the time.

One outcome (and this is a big stretch I think) is
that the Gulf Stream could switch off in which case
the weather in the UK could become similar to the
present weather in Labrador.
If that turns out to be correct then global warming will
have caused a reduction in the winter temperature
in North Western Europe.

These predictions are coming from the application
of the same tools and techniques that have made
reliable weather forecasts an everyday proposition.

Ignoring the atmospheric changes that the burning
of fossil fuels has caused (and this appears to me
to be indisputable - carbon was in ground, is now in
atmosphere) and assuming that it will not adversely
affect the climate is only an option for those that have
no interest in the continuation of the human civilisation.

If I was an active private (or other) pilot I would be
concerned that my costs were going to rise
due to legislative and market changes triggered
by concern about global warming and of
course any 'leisure' activity involving the
use of fossil fuels is likely to be the subject of
unwelcome attention. However, there is a LONG
way to go in the improvement of the performance
of gerneral aviation engines and this is likely
to keep the baying mob happy for some
time.

Clearly there are capital cost implications
for this.

Wishing you all well and happy flying.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 6, 3:24 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
> > piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
> > can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to more
> > appropriate forums.
>
> I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
> chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
> complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
> *ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.

We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
warming (ice caps melting). I'm still waiting to find out how we also
caused global warming on Mars. Pretty cool how the weather man on TV
can't guess the temp tomorrow but the global warming people can
predict temps in 20 years. Maybe we need to get those guys to come up
with our forecasts.

-Robert

[Gene Seibel]

On Apr 6, 1:46 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
> piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
> can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to more
> appropriate forums.
>
> Jim "naive and hopeless optimist" Logajan

Went out and did 1.4 hours of warming Monday night myself.
--
Gene Seibel
Daughter Becca's Jewelry - http://pad39a.com/stelle_sheen
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Gene Seibel]

On Apr 6, 6:18 pm, wrote:
>
> Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
> is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
> increases in the energy of weather systems.
> No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
> everywhere all of the time.
>
That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
bells go off.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Don Tabor]

On 6 Apr 2007 16:18:25 -0700, wrote:

>One outcome (and this is a big stretch I think) is
>that the Gulf Stream could switch off in which case
>the weather in the UK could become similar to the
>present weather in Labrador.
>If that turns out to be correct then global warming will
>have caused a reduction in the winter temperature
>in North Western Europe.

Why would you expect that? It has already been warmer during the
Medieval Warm Period and the climate in Britain was balmy enough to
grow grapes. Norsemen colonized coastal Greenland and grew grains and
raised cattle there.




Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Peter Dohm]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 6, 6:18 pm, wrote:
> >
> > Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
> > is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
> > increases in the energy of weather systems.
> > No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
> > everywhere all of the time.
> >
> That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
> natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
> and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
> readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
> susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
> once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
> bells go off.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
> Because I fly, I envy no one.
>
In addition I recently heard that some surface reporting stations in Siberia
ceased operation--so that data was simply omitted from the calculations.

Since any resulting error would be in the "correct" direction, according to
the current Gore sycophants, there is no reason to correct for the missing
data, nor to work to put the reporting stations back on line.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 3:24 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > > But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
> > > piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that
I
> > > can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to
more
> > > appropriate forums.
> >
> > I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
> > chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
> > complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
> > *ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.
>
> We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
> warming (ice caps melting). I'm still waiting to find out how we also
> caused global warming on Mars. Pretty cool how the weather man on TV
> can't guess the temp tomorrow but the global warming people can
> predict temps in 20 years. Maybe we need to get those guys to come up
> with our forecasts.
>
> -Robert
>
Obviously, for the heat to traverse the interplanetary space, we are burning
*way* too much fuel!

OTOH, there seems to be some doubt whether the Earth's northern polar region
is currently as warm as it was in Viking times.

Regrettably, I don't have the free time at the moment to search for the
references.

Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> These predictions are coming from the application
> of the same tools and techniques that have made
> reliable weather forecasts an everyday proposition.

I don't see a "smiley" here -- so I can only conclude that your're
serious?

"Reliable weather forecasts"?? Where have you EVER seen one of
those? I have been a student of meterology since taking several
courses in college, some 25 years ago, and am here to tell you that
there are NO accurate forecast models that function beyond 12 hours
out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
> warming (ice caps melting).

This morning on NPR my son and I both noticed a subtle-but-important
shift in the nomenclature the "Global Warming" advocates are now
using. The argument is now being framed in terms of "Global Climate
Change", rather than "Global Warming" -- at least on NPR.

I guess the advocates of this pseudo-science got tired of being
ridiculed by folks who have been shivering through some of the coldest
weather on record. Now they can just sit back and say "What, it's
record-setting COLD? Hey, that's 'Global Climate Change' at work."

It's amazing how gullible some of the supposedly smartest people in
the world can be. Of course, this is happening in a society that
spends $7 BILLION dollars annually on...bottled *water*.

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

[RomeoMike]

Jay Honeck wrote:
I have been a student of meterology since taking several
> courses in college, some 25 years ago

Let's see, several college courses 25 years ago. Nothing, of course, has
changed since then in terms of new scientific methods of studying
weather, no new accumulation of knowledge by those whose full-time
profession it is to study it. You shiver in an upper mid-west microcosm,
so the scientists are wrong. Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but
IMHO no one in this group so far has the credentials to mount a
counter argument to the global warming theorists. How it affects GA is
the least of my worries for my progeny.

[Jack Allison]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
> chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
> complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
> *ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to sick AlGore...AlBore...um, you know, the guy
who almost became president, on you. :-)


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> "Reliable weather forecasts"?? Where have you EVER seen one of
> those? I have been a student of meterology since taking several
> courses in college, some 25 years ago, and am here to tell you that
> there are NO accurate forecast models that function beyond 12 hours
> out.

I've been flying since 1987. In that time I've been paying close attention
to weather forecast. For my area (the northeast) my undocumented
observations (no pun) of the weather forecasts accuracy are:

1) 12 hours forecasts have improved. So much so that winds,
visibility, and cloud cover forecasts are close enough for me to make
go/no-go decisions MUCH more reliably now rather than 20 years ago.

2) In 1987, 3-5 day forecasts were a joke to the point where if
rain was forecast in 3 days I could start planning on maybe going
flying.

Weather forecasting isn't perfect, but it sure has improved for
me here in the northeast.

btw - back in 1984 I attended a computing symposium at Goddard
Space Flight Center (if that's now the official name, sorry, but it was
at Goddard). One talk of interest was the computing power needed
for weather forecasting. The supercomputers used for the models
in 1984 required 48 hours of wallclock time to render a 24 hour
forecast. That forecast was only a bit better than 50% (?) correct.
They were estimating the need for several orders of magnitude more
CPU power as well as more efficient models. Well, we certainly have
much more CPU power available now...

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

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:21:55 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote:

>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
> I have been a student of meterology since taking several
>> courses in college, some 25 years ago
>
>Let's see, several college courses 25 years ago. Nothing, of course, has
>changed since then in terms of new scientific methods of studying
>weather, no new accumulation of knowledge by those whose full-time
>profession it is to study it. You shiver in an upper mid-west microcosm,
>so the scientists are wrong. Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but
> IMHO no one in this group so far has the credentials to mount a
>counter argument to the global warming theorists. How it affects GA is
>the least of my worries for my progeny.

it is not about credentials.

it is about data and its interpretation. has anyone seen the data?
al gore presents a graph of co2 but never reveals the data behind the
graph. there is no opportunity to validate or refute the data. no
opportunity to get to any of the facts.

one aspect of the global warming nonsense is the omission of lapse
rates in the discussion. in the hottest days on the nullabor it gets
to 45 deg celcius but at 14,000ft it is still zero degrees.

the religion of global warming is clueless because it presents the
scenario that the entire world is heating up. errr have the lapse
rates ceased to function???

credentials! the pope has credentials ....but there is no god.

Stealth Pilot

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
> is increasing.

That's not a proposal, it's an observation, and well established.

The only questions are the long-term changes that may occur as a result of
increased temperatures, and the causes of the increased temperatures. Nobody
has any idea of what the answers to either of these questions might be,
despite media claims to the contrary.

> One outcome (and this is a big stretch I think) is
> that the Gulf Stream could switch off in which case
> the weather in the UK could become similar to the
> present weather in Labrador.
> If that turns out to be correct then global warming will
> have caused a reduction in the winter temperature
> in North Western Europe.

But that is complete speculation. Nobody really knows.

> These predictions are coming from the application
> of the same tools and techniques that have made
> reliable weather forecasts an everyday proposition.

Since we do not have reliable weather forecasts, that gives you some idea of
how clueless we are with respect to long-term weather changes. It is not
currently possible to predict even so much as a thunderstorm with any
accuracy, up until a few minutes before it begins. We cannot predict the
development or path of tornadoes, even in the seconds before they appear. We
cannot predict the development of hurricanes or their path. We don't know
exactly when it will snow or rain. We cannot predict wind directions.

Furthermore, weather is chaotic, which means that a very small change in
initial conditions will produce huge swings in the weather later on. A
consequence of this is that the only way to accurately predict the weather
over the long term is to have 100% accurate data, and lots of it. This means,
for example, that we need temperature, pressure, and humidity data for every
cubic metre of the Earth's atmosphere at any given instant, and it must all be
perfectly accurate, otherwise we can never accurately predict the weather for
tomorrow or the day after ... much less for 100 years from now. We will never
have data this accurate, and so we will never be able to predict weather with
that degree of accuracy.

We actually have a better change of finding ways to alter than the weather
than of finding ways to predict it with accuracy. And that's saying a lot,
given that we have no real hope at this time of altering the weather.

> Ignoring the atmospheric changes that the burning
> of fossil fuels has caused (and this appears to me
> to be indisputable - carbon was in ground, is now in
> atmosphere) and assuming that it will not adversely
> affect the climate is only an option for those that have
> no interest in the continuation of the human civilisation.

This is a vast exaggeration. We really have no idea what the burning of
fossil fuels will do to the weather, if anything. We have no accurate models
for prediction of future weather, and we don't have the computing power to use
such models even if they existed. Additionally, for both short-term and
long-term weather predictions, we don't have all the data we need, and we
never will--not only because our means of gathering data are limited, but also
because some of the variables, such as solar output, cannot be known in
advance.

Many people _assume_ that the burning of fossil fuels is connected to global
warming, for various reasons that often have nothing to do with science. But
we really don't know. We only know that the temperature has increased
recently.

> If I was an active private (or other) pilot I would be
> concerned that my costs were going to rise
> due to legislative and market changes triggered
> by concern about global warming and of
> course any 'leisure' activity involving the
> use of fossil fuels is likely to be the subject of
> unwelcome attention. However, there is a LONG
> way to go in the improvement of the performance
> of gerneral aviation engines and this is likely
> to keep the baying mob happy for some
> time.

General aviation makes absolutely no dent in the accumulation of greenhouse
gases, and therefore cannot possibly be making a dent in the weather. Anyone
complaining about GA is barking up the wrong tree. Of course, that won't stop
people from barking. Even commercial aviation really doesn't make any dent.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gene Seibel writes:

> That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
> natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
> and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
> readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
> susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
> once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
> bells go off.

Of all the data we have, that which appears to show a warming trend is the
most reliable and plentiful. It is true that we cannot prove that a definite
trend is in progress, nor can we know whether it will continue. But the
observation of a warming trend is far more reliable than the rampant
speculation on the possible causes of that warming. The notion that burning
fossil fuels is somehow causing global warming is pure speculation.

I think the real factors at work here are a human tendency to egotistically
believe that people can have any real influence on the planet, and a human
tendency to extreme and hysterical behavior. Both of these combine to induce
many human beings to see patterns where none may exist, and then to attribute
those patterns to human activity. In reality, we have no idea.

I think it's a good idea to reduce the use of fossil fuels simply because we
don't really know how much fuel remains. Reducing greenhouse gases is
secondary, because we don't really know what effect, if any, these gases might
have on the weather over the long term.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> "Reliable weather forecasts"?? Where have you EVER seen one of
> those? I have been a student of meterology since taking several
> courses in college, some 25 years ago, and am here to tell you that
> there are NO accurate forecast models that function beyond 12 hours
> out.

Exactly. So how much can you trust "forecasts" for 100 years from now?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> Let's see, several college courses 25 years ago. Nothing, of course, has
> changed since then in terms of new scientific methods of studying
> weather, no new accumulation of knowledge by those whose full-time
> profession it is to study it.

It's not necessary. The impossibility of long-term forecasting is a
mathematical reality, and unavoidable. It doesn't matter what advances are
made. It cannot be done. I've already explained why.

> Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but
> IMHO no one in this group so far has the credentials to mount a
> counter argument to the global warming theorists.

The global-warming theorists have no credentials, either. Nobody really knows
how the Earth's climate works on a global scale and over long periods. The
theorists are no more or less likely to be right than you or Jay are. In
fact, they are no more or less likely to be right than a toss of the dice.

> How it affects GA is the least of my worries for my progeny.

The biggest danger for human beings over the long term is overpopulation.
That has always been true, and it always will be true, barring some natural
catastrophe on a global or galactic scale.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> btw - back in 1984 I attended a computing symposium at Goddard
> Space Flight Center (if that's now the official name, sorry, but it was
> at Goddard). One talk of interest was the computing power needed
> for weather forecasting. The supercomputers used for the models
> in 1984 required 48 hours of wallclock time to render a 24 hour
> forecast. That forecast was only a bit better than 50% (?) correct.
> They were estimating the need for several orders of magnitude more
> CPU power as well as more efficient models. Well, we certainly have
> much more CPU power available now...

But we also need much more accurate and extensive data, which we do not have.

The computing power and data increase more than exponentially with the length
of the forecast required, because of the chaotic nature of weather. That's
why weather forecasting has barely made any progress at all, even as computing
power has increased by many orders of magnitude.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
> warming (ice caps melting).

Thirty years ago, we were entering an ice age, according to some.

> I'm still waiting to find out how we also caused global warming on Mars.

We can't, but an increase in solar output can do this, on both planets.

> Pretty cool how the weather man on TV can't guess the temp tomorrow
> but the global warming people can predict temps in 20 years. Maybe we
> need to get those guys to come up with our forecasts.

They should go to Las Vegas and fund their studies with their gambling
winnings, since, if they can predict the weather 20 years in advance, winning
100% at gambling should be child's play for them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> These predictions are coming from the application
>> of the same tools and techniques that have made
>> reliable weather forecasts an everyday proposition.
>
> I don't see a "smiley" here -- so I can only conclude that your're
> serious?
>
> "Reliable weather forecasts"?? Where have you EVER seen one of
> those? I have been a student of meterology since taking several
> courses in college, some 25 years ago, and am here to tell you that
> there are NO accurate forecast models that function beyond 12 hours
> out.

I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time. This winter the
weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time.

I still have not seen forecasts that can predict the temperature tommorrow
with consistent accuracy. I still have not seen forecasts that can accurately
predict rain, even only a few hours before the target time of the forecast.

> This winter the
> weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
> advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.

Some things are obvious from something as simple as a satellite photo, but
unfortunately other types of forecasts are far more difficult.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time. This winter the
> weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
> advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.

Meteorologists (thanks to satellite technology) have become much
better at predicting storm tracks. This is quite different than
weather forecasting, as in the prediction of where and when a storm
will develop.

All of this isn't to say that methods and results haven't improved --
they have. But we're talking about an improvement from "laughable" to
only "bad" -- which is NOT something I'd hang my hat on in any
discussion of "global climate change."

I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this
discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows
that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last
hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and
everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RomeoMike]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

>
> it is not about credentials.

People with credentials are not always correct, but in my experience
they are correct more often than people without. Often people without
credentials focus on some small part of a problem, unaware of the full
scope.
>
> it is about data and its interpretation. has anyone seen the data?
> al gore presents a graph of co2 but never reveals the data behind the
> graph. there is no opportunity to validate or refute the data. no
> opportunity to get to any of the facts.

I hope people don't make it about Al Gore. I didn't vote for him either.
>
> one aspect of the global warming nonsense is the omission of lapse
> rates in the discussion. in the hottest days on the nullabor it gets
> to 45 deg celcius but at 14,000ft it is still zero degrees.

Personally, I have no idea if this is a valid point. I'm not an expert
either.

[Judah]

RomeoMike > wrote in news:fmvie4-c811.ln1
@news.infowest.com:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
>> chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
>> complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
>> *ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.
>
> Here I sit in the southwest; it's already 90 deg. outside. The globe
> must be warming faster than they say. Your statement and mine equally
> meaningless and narrow.

Maybe it's not "Global Warming". Maybe it's just "Southwest Warming".

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> People with credentials are not always correct, but in my experience
> they are correct more often than people without. Often people without
> credentials focus on some small part of a problem, unaware of the full
> scope.

Often people with credentials adopt an opinion without a solid basis and then
attempt to impose it upon others by constantly referring to their credentials.
Their sycophants and others who agree with them will also attempt to impose
the opinion based on credentials.

> Personally, I have no idea if this is a valid point. I'm not an expert
> either.

I don't think it's a relevant point. The temperature drops with altitude up
to a certain point, then rises again, reaching several thousand degrees at
some altitudes. However, I don't see how this correlates at all with global
warming.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 6, 8:13 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
> > warming (ice caps melting).
>
> This morning on NPR my son and I both noticed a subtle-but-important
> shift in the nomenclature the "Global Warming" advocates are now
> using. The argument is now being framed in terms of "Global Climate
> Change", rather than "Global Warming" -- at least on NPR.
>
> I guess the advocates of this pseudo-science got tired of being
> ridiculed by folks who have been shivering through some of the coldest
> weather on record. Now they can just sit back and say "What, it's
> record-setting COLD? Hey, that's 'Global Climate Change' at work."

Did you see the picture of Pelosi on Drudge a few weeks ago? There was
a picture of her standing there talking about global warming next to a
picture (taken the same day) of orange crops that had frozen in
unseasonably cold weather.
-Robert

[Borat]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 6, 6:18 pm, wrote:
>>
>> Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
>> is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
>> increases in the energy of weather systems.
>> No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
>> everywhere all of the time.
>>
> That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
> natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
> and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
> readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
> susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
> once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
> bells go off.

Probably believe the earth is flat too.

[Jay Honeck]

> Did you see the picture of Pelosi on Drudge a few weeks ago? There was
> a picture of her standing there talking about global warming next to a
> picture (taken the same day) of orange crops that had frozen in
> unseasonably cold weather.

Ha! Nope, I missed that one.

Pelosi is an interesting case. Talk about delusions of grandeur -- a
mere Congressional representative with the arrogance to meet with the
Syrians about peace with Israel!

I'll bet they're still laughing...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Borat]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time. This winter the
>> weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
>> advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.
>
> Meteorologists (thanks to satellite technology) have become much
> better at predicting storm tracks. This is quite different than
> weather forecasting, as in the prediction of where and when a storm
> will develop.
>
> All of this isn't to say that methods and results haven't improved --
> they have. But we're talking about an improvement from "laughable" to
> only "bad" -- which is NOT something I'd hang my hat on in any
> discussion of "global climate change."
>
> I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this
> discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows
> that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last
> hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and
> everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts".

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
prognosis.

What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
available to model various scenarios.

Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but over long
periods of time.

Let the scientists do their job, and you do yours.

You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
keeper.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
>> warming (ice caps melting).
>
> Thirty years ago, we were entering an ice age, according to some.
>
>> I'm still waiting to find out how we also caused global warming on
>> Mars.
>
> We can't, but an increase in solar output can do this, on both
> planets.
>
>> Pretty cool how the weather man on TV can't guess the temp tomorrow
>> but the global warming people can predict temps in 20 years. Maybe we
>> need to get those guys to come up with our forecasts.
>
> They should go to Las Vegas and fund their studies with their gambling
> winnings, since, if they can predict the weather 20 years in advance,
> winning 100% at gambling should be child's play for them.
>

Dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and
dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer and dummer
and dummer and dummer and dummer and


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Borat writes:

> With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
> and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
> prognosis.

Nothing makes people who have been studying something for years honest or
objective (even with themselves).

Scientists have to eat, and they soon learn that one good way to eat is to do
studies that reach acceptable and desirable conclusions. Doing studies that
reach unpopular conclusions leads to ridicule and a loss of income.

Right now, global warming is where the money and glory are. So scientists
study global warming, and they make sure that they reach the right
conclusions.

> What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
> available to model various scenarios.

Computer power is not the problem. Accurate models are the problem. Nobody
knows how to create an accurate model of global climate. Nobody even has a
clue, in fact. There are too many variables and the climate is too complex.
Nobody knows which factors are important; indeed, nobody knows all the factors
to begin with. There is no way today to predict the climate 100 years from
now, or even a year from now, no matter how powerful the computers.

Scientists can't even predict local weather 24 hours from now.

> Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but over long
> periods of time.

And that's why we really know nothing about it. We can only watch and
observe.

> You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
> keeper.

Most people get upset whenever anyone questions their competence. That
doesn't mean that competence should not be questioned.

Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting a new ice age. Where's the ice?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Martin Hotze]

On 6 Apr 2007 20:13:28 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>It's amazing how gullible some of the supposedly smartest people in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the world can be. Of course, this is happening in a society that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>spends $7 BILLION dollars annually on...bottled *water*.

you're referring to people in the US.


There *are* people with a clue - both within and outside the US.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[kontiki]

Gene Seibel wrote:
> Satellite and balloon
> readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
> susceptible to errors.

This is a reflection of increased solar activity.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Borat writes:
>
>> With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this
>> for years and overall there are more scientists supporting the global
>> warming prognosis.
>
> Nothing makes people who have been studying something for years honest
> or objective (even with themselves).
>
> Scientists have to eat, and they soon learn that one good way to eat
> is to do studies that reach acceptable and desirable conclusions.
> Doing studies that reach unpopular conclusions leads to ridicule and a
> loss of income.
>
> Right now, global warming is where the money and glory are. So
> scientists study global warming, and they make sure that they reach
> the right conclusions.
>
>> What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
>> available to model various scenarios.
>
> Computer power is not the problem. Accurate models are the problem.
> Nobody knows how to create an accurate model of global climate.
> Nobody even has a clue, in fact. There are too many variables and the
> climate is too complex. Nobody knows which factors are important;
> indeed, nobody knows all the factors to begin with. There is no way
> today to predict the climate 100 years from now, or even a year from
> now, no matter how powerful the computers.
>
> Scientists can't even predict local weather 24 hours from now.
>
>> Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but
>> over long periods of time.
>
> And that's why we really know nothing about it. We can only watch and
> observe.
>
>> You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
>> keeper.
>
> Most people get upset whenever anyone questions their competence.
> That doesn't mean that competence should not be questioned.
>
> Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting a new ice age. Where's
> the ice?
>

In your brain and nuts?

Bertie

[Don Tabor]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:28:47 +0100, "Borat" > wrote:

>> I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this
>> discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows
>> that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last
>> hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and
>> everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts".
>
>With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
>and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
>prognosis.

But how would you know?

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers was written by bureaucrats with
political motives. It is supposed to be a summary of the Technical
Summary of Working Group 1 on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change.
The Technical Summary has not been released yet as it is being
rewritten TO CONFORM TO THE SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS. I'm not making
that up, the science will be rewritten to conform to the political
document before being released in May.

Fortunately, the final draft of the Technical Summary was leaked by
some of the participants who were upset by the politicization of the
study. It is available at www.junkscience.com among other places.

Read it and you will see the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not
reflect the Technical Summary (TS) in many places, particularly sea
level rise. The worst case sea level rise by 2100 in the TS is 17
inches, not 23 inches as in the SPM, much less the 20 to 200 ft thrown
around by Gore and the Associated Press.

The TS states that without melting the Greenland Ice Sheet and the
Antarctic Ice Sheets, the forever maximum rise is about a meter. The
SPM does not mention that limit and hints that the Greenland and
Antarctic Ice Sheets could melt though the TS flatly rejects that
possibility.

Many of the scientists in working group one resigned over the
politicization of the study, but the IPCC is still listing them as
authors. You can see them interviewed in the BBC Channel 4
documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is available in
Google Videos and YouTube.

In short, what you seem to think scientists agree on is very different
from what they actually believe. You have to go past the popular media
and political statements from the UN and activists to learn what is
real and what is hype.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Gene Seibel writes:
>
> > That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
> > natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
> > and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
> > readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
> > susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
> > once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
> > bells go off.
>
> Of all the data we have, that which appears to show a warming trend is the
> most reliable and plentiful. It is true that we cannot prove that a definite
> trend is in progress, nor can we know whether it will continue. But the
> observation of a warming trend is far more reliable than the rampant
> speculation on the possible causes of that warming. The notion that burning
> fossil fuels is somehow causing global warming is pure speculation.
>
> I think the real factors at work here are a human tendency to egotistically
> believe that people can have any real influence on the planet, and a human
> tendency to extreme and hysterical behavior.

The IPCC doesn't help matters.

This is a very interesting video - haven't seen it debunked yet (other
than debunking of the solar flare correlation - but the guts of it has
not)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

--
Duncan

[RomeoMike]

Judah wrote:

>
> Maybe it's not "Global Warming". Maybe it's just "Southwest Warming".

Well, seems you missed the sarcasm.

[Dan Luke]

"Don Tabor" wrote:

> Many of the scientists in working group one resigned over the
> politicization of the study, but the IPCC is still listing them as
> authors. You can see them interviewed in the BBC Channel 4
> documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments
were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin
Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK Channel
4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to
apologize for the other program of his that it aired.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Don Tabor]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:59:30 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
>same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments
>were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. T

I would not claim TGGWS is totally unbiased, but keep in mind I
suggested it as a balance to Gore's film. However, the MediaLens
refutation is the real load of BS. They concentrate on one scientist
who said he was misled on the films purpose, but even he does not say
that what he said on the film was inaccurate. Then they dismiss about
half a dozen other scientists who would not refute their parts in the
film in a single sentence claiming they are all influenced by right
wing think tanks. Guilt by association. One even is an NRA member,
horrors.

Read the About Us tab for MediaLens and you will see they are exactly
the anti-capitalist environmental nut cases who are pushing the whole
man caused global warming as end of the world foolishness.

Again, go to the IPCC working group one Technical Summary and read it.
TGGWS is a lot closer to the science than Inconvenient Truth is.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Dan Luke]

"Don Tabor" wrote:

> I would not claim TGGWS is totally unbiased,

LOL

> but keep in mind I suggested it as a balance to Gore's film.

So in your mind, two piles of bull**** add up to one pile of truth?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:32:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RomeoMike writes:
>
>> People with credentials are not always correct, but in my experience
>> they are correct more often than people without. Often people without
>> credentials focus on some small part of a problem, unaware of the full
>> scope.
>
>Often people with credentials adopt an opinion without a solid basis and then
>attempt to impose it upon others by constantly referring to their credentials.
>Their sycophants and others who agree with them will also attempt to impose
>the opinion based on credentials.
>
>> Personally, I have no idea if this is a valid point. I'm not an expert
>> either.
>
>I don't think it's a relevant point. The temperature drops with altitude up
>to a certain point, then rises again, reaching several thousand degrees at
>some altitudes. However, I don't see how this correlates at all with global
>warming.

well if there is warming it is only surface warming not global
warming.
has the earth's weather ever been stable?

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> has the earth's weather ever been stable?

No. No planet that is any distance above absolute zero will have stable
weather.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

RomeoMike > wrote in news:22sle4-f6p1.ln1
@news.infowest.com:

>> Maybe it's not "Global Warming". Maybe it's just "Southwest Warming".
>
> Well, seems you missed the sarcasm.

Or perhaps you did...

[Tony Cox]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message news:
...
>
> "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
> same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments
> were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin
> Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK Channel
> 4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to
> apologize for the other program of his that it aired.
>
> http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

The "hatchet job" tone of your note & the reference you site
is *exactly* the problem that many of us have with the entire
"Global Warming" pseudo-debate -- people like you politicize
the whole mess to discredit people who disagree with your
religious orthodoxy.

Durkin is a "bozo" and Channel 4 is "tabloid". "Many
scientists", you say, have called it "pure propaganda",
as if we're supposed to agree that "truth" can somehow
be decided by majority vote.

The "expose" you quote goes on to say that eight of the scientists
interviewed "are linked to American neo-conservative and
right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of
millions of dollars from Exxon", as if that tenuous connection
(if even true) right there makes them irrelevant.

I took the trouble to view TGGWS on Google to see if what
your link says about the program is true.Their critique is quite
simply a nonsense.

1) Their fundamental claim is that Durkin says increasing CO2
is itself the result of increasing temperature. This claim was
never made.

2) They claim Durkin is "deeply deceptive" by portraying
a decline in temperature between 1940 and 1975, where
their supposedly-countering graph shows almost the same
drop (where GW orthodoxy predicts a rise).

3) They claim recent global warming related to CO2 is true
simply by reference to authority (the IPCC report), which
ought to be a red flag to anyone. Even to you.

4) Their explanation of the 800 year CO2 lag is nothing new.
That's completely consistent with what the program claimed.

5) They confuse solar energy output with sunspot activity. Durkin
made no claim that solar energy output was changing or affecting
"global warming", so setting this up as a straw man to be viciously
dissected means, quite simply, squat..

The review then degenerates into carefully documenting the
supposed sinister links between the scientists interviewed and
the oil companies. It then quotes various "Scientainers" who bloody
well ought to know better for being outraged that their ill-considered
musings are being called into question.

No doubt you'll counter by helpfully pointing out that one of the
scientific challengers to this new secular religion was once hauled
up before his university authorities for sexual harassment.

Or do you have something more relevant and substantial to offer?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 11:46 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
>> piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
>> can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to
>> more
>> appropriate forums.
>>
>> Jim "naive and hopeless optimist" Logajan
>
> I only wish that were true. We are not far off from having GA
> regulated in the name of global warming. Limiting flight hours, days
> flown, etc is a very, very likely scenario. Almost any freedom can be
> taken away if you put a "Global Warming" tag on it.
>

Or a "For the Children" tag.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
>> piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
>> can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to
>> more appropriate forums.
>>
>> Jim "naive and hopeless optimist" Logajan
>
> Jim, if you think that the 'religion' of global warming does not or
> will not affect your flying, or th your freedom to fly you are naive.
>
BINGO!!

Give that man a (polluting) cigar!

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:59:30 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
>>"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of
>>those
>>same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their
>>comments
>>were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. T
>
> I would not claim TGGWS is totally unbiased, but keep in mind I
> suggested it as a balance to Gore's film.

Biased how?

BTW, the "scientist" (singlular) that claimed his remarks were taken out of
context was shown to be lying. He was, most likely, afraid of losing his
cushy federal grants like two of his collegues who refused to toe the state
agenda.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen218.xml

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
> In addition I recently heard that some surface reporting stations in
> Siberia
> ceased operation--so that data was simply omitted from the calculations.
>
> Since any resulting error would be in the "correct" direction, according
> to
> the current Gore sycophants, there is no reason to correct for the missing
> data, nor to work to put the reporting stations back on line.

Even suface observations have been, historically, located in developed
areas. Those areas are, today, greatly increased in size and infrasturcture,
that creates what;s known as "heat island effect".

An honest scientists (redundant?) would correct for that; an agenda-driven
hack, OTOH, plays games with the data.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:49:35 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>> There *are* people with a clue - both within and outside the US.
>>
>And Martin is definitely not one of them, the goosestepping nazi.

well, as an American you shouldn't cry and whine too much about nazis and
about environment.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 3:24 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> > But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
>> > piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that
>> > I
>> > can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to
>> > more
>> > appropriate forums.
>>
>> I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
>> chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
>> complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
>> *ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.
>
> We're told that the unusally cold temps lately are a result of global
> warming (ice caps melting). I'm still waiting to find out how we also
> caused global warming on Mars. Pretty cool how the weather man on TV
> can't guess the temp tomorrow but the global warming people can
> predict temps in 20 years. Maybe we need to get those guys to come up
> with our forecasts.
>
I find it amusing when I get up at 5:00 in the morning and check the weather
which says something like:

Tonights Low: 48 F --- Present Temperature: 44F.

The boneheads can't even do simple arithmetic.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Obviously, for the heat to traverse the interplanetary space, we are
> burning
> *way* too much fuel!
>
> OTOH, there seems to be some doubt whether the Earth's northern polar
> region
> is currently as warm as it was in Viking times.


Some doubt? The Vikings planted crops, including vineyards, in Greenland,
which unless you missed it, is completed covered in permanent ice.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 Apr 2007 20:13:28 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>It's amazing how gullible some of the supposedly smartest people in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>the world can be. Of course, this is happening in a society that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>spends $7 BILLION dollars annually on...bottled *water*.
>
> you're referring to people in the US.
>
>
> There *are* people with a clue - both within and outside the US.
>
And Martin is definitely not one of them, the goosestepping nazi.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:49:35 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >> There *are* people with a clue - both within and outside the US.
> >>
> >And Martin is definitely not one of them, the goosestepping nazi.
>
> well, as an American you shouldn't cry and whine too much about nazis and
> about environment.

shouldn't that post have killed the thread?
(pardon my english, I'm an engineer)

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

[Dan Luke]

"Tony Cox" wrote:

>> "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
>> same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their
>> comments
>> were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin
>> Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK
>> Channel
>> 4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to
>> apologize for the other program of his that it aired.
>>
>> http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
>
> The "hatchet job" tone of your note & the reference you site
> is *exactly* the problem that many of us have with the entire
> "Global Warming" pseudo-debate -- people like you politicize
> the whole mess to discredit people who disagree with your
> religious orthodoxy.

Religious orthodoxy? You sound very much like a creationist attacking the
theory of evolution. What are your views on Intelligent Design, BTW?

I have not made up my mind, but the more I see of this kind of crap from the
deniers, the more I am moved towards the other side.

> Durkin is a "bozo" and Channel 4 is "tabloid". "Many
> scientists", you say, have called it "pure propaganda",
> as if we're supposed to agree that "truth" can somehow
> be decided by majority vote.

Durkin *is* a bozo. He has been caught lying and quote-mining before, and
Channel 4 has had to apologize publicly for running a program he produced,
remember? Of course, being Channel 4, they certainly didn't let that little
episode stop them from running another piece of sensationalized Durkin
codswollop to get some ratings buzz.

>
> The "expose" you quote goes on to say that eight of the scientists
> interviewed "are linked to American neo-conservative and
> right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of
> millions of dollars from Exxon", as if that tenuous connection
> (if even true) right there makes them irrelevant.

It makes them subject to obvious conflict of interest. Remember the tobacco
company "scientists?"

> I took the trouble to view TGGWS on Google to see if what
> your link says about the program is true.Their critique is quite
> simply a nonsense.
>
> 1) Their fundamental claim is that Durkin says increasing CO2
> is itself the result of increasing temperature. This claim was
> never made.
>
> 2) They claim Durkin is "deeply deceptive" by portraying
> a decline in temperature between 1940 and 1975, where
> their supposedly-countering graph shows almost the same
> drop (where GW orthodoxy predicts a rise).
>
> 3) They claim recent global warming related to CO2 is true
> simply by reference to authority (the IPCC report), which
> ought to be a red flag to anyone. Even to you.

Why is it a red flag to you? Do you buy the talk radio line that politicians
control the science behind the IPCC report? Or are you one of the conspiracy
theorists who claim that almost all the world's climatologists are in on a big
scam?

Deniers are fond of attacking the IPCC report because it is a political
document, ignoring the fact that their are two stages to the report: the
initial scientific findings and then the final report that is "tweaked" by
politicians.

In fact, it is the politicians who are attempting to *tone down* the language
of the latest scientific findings. The scientific authors are angry that the
politicians have tried to dilute the seriousness of their results by altering
the language:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003657129_climatereport08.html


> 4) Their explanation of the 800 year CO2 lag is nothing new.
> That's completely consistent with what the program claimed.
>
> 5) They confuse solar energy output with sunspot activity. Durkin
> made no claim that solar energy output was changing or affecting
> "global warming", so setting this up as a straw man to be viciously
> dissected means, quite simply, squat..
>
> The review then degenerates into carefully documenting the
> supposed sinister links between the scientists interviewed and
> the oil companies. It then quotes various "Scientainers" who bloody
> well ought to know better for being outraged that their ill-considered
> musings are being called into question.
>
> No doubt you'll counter by helpfully pointing out that one of the
> scientific challengers to this new secular religion was once hauled
> up before his university authorities for sexual harassment.

"Hauled up?" Is that equivalent to "proven guilty?" How about a cite?

> Or do you have something more relevant and substantial to offer?

I offer the suggestion that serious thinkers should avoid twaddle like "An
Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Balanced,
rational sources are out there if that's what you're really looking for,
instead of something to stroke your prejudices.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

[Tony Cox]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message news:
...
>
> "Tony Cox" wrote:
> >
> > The "hatchet job" tone of your note & the reference you site
> > is *exactly* the problem that many of us have with the entire
> > "Global Warming" pseudo-debate -- people like you politicize
> > the whole mess to discredit people who disagree with your
> > religious orthodoxy.
>
> Religious orthodoxy? You sound very much like a creationist attacking the
> theory of evolution. What are your views on Intelligent Design, BTW?

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

> I have not made up my mind, but the more I see of this kind of crap from the
> deniers, the more I am moved towards the other side.

Calling someone a "bozo" and vilifying anyone who challenges
the orthodoxy sounds like someone whose mind is made up
to me. Did you actually read the vindictive comments in the
link you posted? And what do you think the "deniers"
are denying anyway?

Not made up your mind, indeed. Even the language you use
betrays the fact that you have.

>
> > Durkin is a "bozo" and Channel 4 is "tabloid". "Many
> > scientists", you say, have called it "pure propaganda",
> > as if we're supposed to agree that "truth" can somehow
> > be decided by majority vote.
>
> Durkin *is* a bozo.

Can't you just dispense with the ad hominem attacks and
concentrate on the evidence presented in TGGWS?

> > The "expose" you quote goes on to say that eight of the scientists
> > interviewed "are linked to American neo-conservative and
> > right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of
> > millions of dollars from Exxon", as if that tenuous connection
> > (if even true) right there makes them irrelevant.
>
> It makes them subject to obvious conflict of interest. Remember the tobacco
> company "scientists?"

That depends on what their "links" actually are. Several scientists
in the documentary claim that they'd been attacked for exactly
what you are charging them with, and that they are not connected
in any way with the oil industry. They sounded quite convincing
to me. Do you think them liars?

And what do you think of scientists that get their funding from
the state? Are they by implication unbiased?

>
> > I took the trouble to view TGGWS on Google to see if what
> > your link says about the program is true.Their critique is quite
> > simply a nonsense.
> >
> > 1) Their fundamental claim is that Durkin says increasing CO2
> > is itself the result of increasing temperature. This claim was
> > never made.
> >
> > 2) They claim Durkin is "deeply deceptive" by portraying
> > a decline in temperature between 1940 and 1975, where
> > their supposedly-countering graph shows almost the same
> > drop (where GW orthodoxy predicts a rise).
> >
> > 3) They claim recent global warming related to CO2 is true
> > simply by reference to authority (the IPCC report), which
> > ought to be a red flag to anyone. Even to you.
>
> Why is it a red flag to you?

Because thinking people are supposed to *question* authority,
not blindly accept it as gospel. One look at the brief that the
IPCC workshop participants were supposed to address is enough
for anyone to question its neutrality. It's the scientific equivalent
of
asking husbands when they stopped beating their wives -- the
question frames the answer the questioner expects to receive.

> Do you buy the talk radio line that politicians
> control the science behind the IPCC report? Or are you one of the conspiracy
> theorists who claim that almost all the world's climatologists are in on a big
> scam?

Oh for Christ's sake. This isn't a "majority vote" issue, dammit.
It doesn't make a jot of difference what "almost all" climatologists
think, just as it made no difference that "almost all" scientists in
the early 20th century thought Einstein was wrong. Science doesn't
work that way. Or at least it didn't until the current crop of scam
artists and "Scientainers" appeared.

Global warming as a result of human activity is simply a *theory*. It
is not fact. It is based upon models that are incomplete and subject
to revision. They make no attempt to model climate over the full range
of data available to them, preferring instead to explore a selected
range
to "prove" whatever particular point the authors want to make. The
public aren't frightened by a 10 ft rise in sea level? Well, then,
lets
just tweak a few parameters and make that 20ft & see if they'll vote
for higher gas taxes now.

You seem to think the that the validity of these frightening
predictions
ought to be resolved by name calling and innuendo. It may work for
you, but it certainly doesn't for me. I want proof, and that 'aint
what's
on offer.

> Deniers are fond of attacking the IPCC report because it is a political
> document, ignoring the fact that their are two stages to the report: the
> initial scientific findings and then the final report that is "tweaked" by
> politicians.

You don't have to be a "denier" (of what, exactly?) to criticize the
IPCC report; you need go no further than the absurd claims being
made for the fragile models they've devised. It all borders on junk
science.

If the NWS can't tell me with any certainty whether it'll rain
next Tuesday, why do you think climate models can reliably
tell me what the sea level will be in 70 years time?

>
> In fact, it is the politicians who are attempting to *tone down* the language
> of the latest scientific findings. The scientific authors are angry that the
> politicians have tried to dilute the seriousness of their results by altering
> the language:
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003657129_climatereport08.html

Oh now that's a good read. Tell me. If you come across a
scientific paper that has for one of its conclusions that "Global
warming could increase the number of hungry in 2080 by
between 140 million and 1 billion, depending on how much
greenhouse gas is emitted in coming decades.", doesn't that
register on your BS meter? What is "could"? What is "hungry"?
And what are the greenhouse gas levels we're talking about?

It registers on mine, but there again, I was involved for over 20
years in experimental research. I *know* scientific BS when
I see it. I also know, and can relate to, what academics have
to do to get ahead. I also had the joy once of having *my*
work used by politicians to further their particular aims, and so
I'm very sensitive to it. No wonder several scientist are now
clamoring to jump ship as they see their conclusions "enhanced"
to fit the agenda of others. They're quite a naive bunch, really,
and the poor fools were probably lead like lambs to the slaughter
by promises of scrumptious dinners and conference romance.

>
>
> > 4) Their explanation of the 800 year CO2 lag is nothing new.
> > That's completely consistent with what the program claimed.
> >
> > 5) They confuse solar energy output with sunspot activity. Durkin
> > made no claim that solar energy output was changing or affecting
> > "global warming", so setting this up as a straw man to be viciously
> > dissected means, quite simply, squat..
> >
> > The review then degenerates into carefully documenting the
> > supposed sinister links between the scientists interviewed and
> > the oil companies. It then quotes various "Scientainers" who bloody
> > well ought to know better for being outraged that their ill-considered
> > musings are being called into question.
> >
> > No doubt you'll counter by helpfully pointing out that one of the
> > scientific challengers to this new secular religion was once hauled
> > up before his university authorities for sexual harassment.
>
> "Hauled up?" Is that equivalent to "proven guilty?" How about a cite?

I was just giving you an example of a line of attack that would
be quite in keeping with your general comments before. I have no
idea if it is true or not, but clearly its something that you'd
consider
important or you wouldn't ask me for a reference. QED, as it were.

>
> > Or do you have something more relevant and substantial to offer?
>
> I offer the suggestion that serious thinkers should avoid twaddle like "An
> Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Balanced,
> rational sources are out there if that's what you're really looking for,
> instead of something to stroke your prejudices.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece

When someone starts offering something from "The Independent"
as unbiased "non-twaddle", I just have to laugh. Didn't that newspaper
hire all the deadbeat hacks from the "Morning Star" after the collapse
of communism?

To cite this as "Balanced and rational" beggars belief. Just three
quotes
from "We Say" express the quality of this acticle.

"For the first time ever enormous amounts of extra
CO2 are being released" (nonsense: the major "step" inputs to the
ecosystem are volcanoes, and they've erupted thorough history).

"The Arctic is likely to be free of ice by 2050 for the first time in
millions of years" (nonsense: even if it is free of ice by 2050, which
is
pure speculation, this'll be the 2nd time in 800 years, not
"millions")

"It's hard to be entirely sure (about solar activity) because we have
been taking measurements only since 1978" (more nonsense: sunspot
activity has been monitored for over 400 years).

And so it goes on. "Balanced and rational" indeed. What rot. Go
watch TGGWS and tell me which parts you think are in error. Don't
rely on the poorly-researched ravings of some nitwit to form your
world
view.

[Peter Dohm]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > Obviously, for the heat to traverse the interplanetary space, we are
> > burning
> > *way* too much fuel!
> >
> > OTOH, there seems to be some doubt whether the Earth's northern polar
> > region
> > is currently as warm as it was in Viking times.
>
>
> Some doubt? The Vikings planted crops, including vineyards, in Greenland,
> which unless you missed it, is completed covered in permanent ice.
>
>
Exactly!

The biggest effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere would really be faster
plant growth and increased crop yeilds. I have heard that warmer
temperatures would also be helpfull in the same regard. The figure I have
heard stated as optimum is 8 degrees--although I don't know on which scale.

I do find it ironic that the same people who claimed that parsimony was a
vice when I was in school are now the ones who say we should shut down the
western world--and of course become vegetarians. Notice that the never say
adopt sound conservation practices, convert to nuclear power, or do much of
anything else that actually works; as that would be parsimony. (End of
rant)

Peter

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Obviously, for the heat to traverse the interplanetary space, we are
>>> burning
>>> *way* too much fuel!
>>>
>>> OTOH, there seems to be some doubt whether the Earth's northern polar
>>> region
>>> is currently as warm as it was in Viking times.
>>
>> Some doubt? The Vikings planted crops, including vineyards, in Greenland,
>> which unless you missed it, is completed covered in permanent ice.
>>
>>
> Exactly!
>
> The biggest effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere would really be faster
> plant growth and increased crop yeilds. I have heard that warmer
> temperatures would also be helpfull in the same regard. The figure I have
> heard stated as optimum is 8 degrees--although I don't know on which scale.
>
> I do find it ironic that the same people who claimed that parsimony was a
> vice when I was in school are now the ones who say we should shut down the
> western world--and of course become vegetarians. Notice that the never say
> adopt sound conservation practices, convert to nuclear power, or do much of
> anything else that actually works; as that would be parsimony. (End of
> rant)
>
> Peter
>
>

If we could show Gore a way to make money for himself from advocating
parsimony, he'd be on that band wagon in a heart beat.

Matt

[Aluckyguess]

Scientists on global warming. If you find that it is warming you still have
a job, if you find there is no such thing and its all bull you have no job.

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> Scientists on global warming. If you find that it is warming you still have
> a job, if you find there is no such thing and its all bull you have no job.

Everybody needs to pay the rent.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:49:35 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >> There *are* people with a clue - both within and outside the US.
> >>
> >And Martin is definitely not one of them, the goosestepping nazi.
>
> well, as an American you shouldn't cry and whine too much about nazis

We don't: we killed a million of them; you welcomed them

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5507&sec_id=5507

/excerpt
When the Nazis marched into Vienna, to the delirious welcome of the crowd,
and not very long before the Gestapo escorted him off the premises as it
were, Freud wrote two lapidary words in his diary: Finis Austriae. And since
then it is true that Austria has not featured very prominently, let alone
favourably, in the mental horizons of most educated people even in Europe,
much less in North America. Despite its great beauty, its marvellous
historical and artistic heritage, and its ascent to great and near-universal
prosperity, a pall even yet hangs over the country, for the most obvious
reasons.

When I think of modern Austria, here is what I think of: scenes from the
film The Third Man, the writer Thomas Bernhard who so despised his native
land that he directed in his will that none of his books ever be published
there, and the diplomat Kurt Waldheim who covered up his own past, again for
very obvious reasons. If pushed, I think also of a modernist artist whose
brilliantly original idea was to cover everything in blood, and Elfriede
Jellinek, the Nobel Prize winner whose view of her country is hardly more
flattering than that of Bernhard. No doubt this is all very unfair, but we
are seldom fair about anything.

/end

> and
> about environment.

Our environment is just peachy. Now, that sewer...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message news:
> ...
>>
>> In fact, it is the politicians who are attempting to *tone down* the
>> language
>> of the latest scientific findings. The scientific authors are angry that
>> the
>> politicians have tried to dilute the seriousness of their results by
>> altering
>> the language:
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003657129_climatereport08.html
>
> Oh now that's a good read. Tell me. If you come across a
> scientific paper that has for one of its conclusions that "Global
> warming could increase the number of hungry in 2080 by
> between 140 million and 1 billion, depending on how much
> greenhouse gas is emitted in coming decades.", doesn't that
> register on your BS meter? What is "could"? What is "hungry"?
> And what are the greenhouse gas levels we're talking about?

Quite! Sounds like Dan is channeling Paul Erlich circa 1980.

Dan your credibility just went to ZERO.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
news:R2hSh.30519$B7.4311@bigfe9...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>>
>> Some doubt? The Vikings planted crops, including vineyards, in Greenland,
>> which unless you missed it, is completed covered in permanent ice.
>>
>>
> Exactly!
>
> The biggest effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere would really be faster
> plant growth and increased crop yeilds. I have heard that warmer
> temperatures would also be helpfull in the same regard. The figure I have
> heard stated as optimum is 8 degrees--although I don't know on which
> scale.
>
> I do find it ironic that the same people who claimed that parsimony was a
> vice when I was in school are now the ones who say we should shut down the
> western world--and of course become vegetarians. Notice that the never
> say
> adopt sound conservation practices, convert to nuclear power, or do much
> of
> anything else that actually works; as that would be parsimony. (End of
> rant)

In the 60's and 70's, Cpaitlaism was BAD because it caused poverty; today
it's BAD because it causes too much prosperity.

And port (excuse ) in a strom.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> If we could show Gore a way to make money for himself from advocating
> parsimony, he'd be on that band wagon in a heart beat.
>
> Matt

It's not just making money that is important to him. The key is that it is
keeping him politically relevant.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Scientists on global warming. If you find that it is warming you still
> have a job, if you find there is no such thing and its all bull you have
> no job.
>
That the earth is warming/warmed is beyond doubt. If it DIDN'T, we'd still
be stuck in the Ice Ages (nice for skiers, but...).

The hacks, promoting themselves as "scientists" _conveniently leave out the
main, salient points.

Most noticably, that overall, the would be many benefits (think: tropical
jungle).

Oh, and I notice the MSM touting how a warmer world would be ridilled with
droughts -- evidently, the MSM bozo's have forgotten the hydrolic cycle
(evidently, they paid as much attention in Scicne class as they did in math,
economics...

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 09:37:53 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>you welcomed them

I didn't.
Nor did my parents.

But you will refer to "you" even in another 50 years.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Mxsmanic]

Martin Hotze writes:

> I didn't.
> Nor did my parents.

In France, the number of former members of the Resistance increases every
year.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> Dan your credibility just went to ZERO.
>

Hah!

A couple of guys fond of regurgitating discredited and irrelevant old
chestnuts alleging to refute AGW talk about credibility? It is to guffaw.
Why don't you tell us about the best vintages from them ol' Greenland
vineyards?

And BTW, Matt, did you catch that bit from Tony about "it's just a theory?"
Who does that remind you of?

You boys can go on back to watching TGGWS and listening to talk radio now.
Neither one of you can see past your own politics.

'bye.


--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Denny]

The current global warming pendulum is on a 15,000 year swing (and
probably longer)... Mans production of CO2 since the industrial
revolution has perhaps hastened the rate of warming... But, even
without man on the planet the warming cycle would have occurred, the
glaciers would have retreated, and we would be close to where we are
now... At worst case we accellerated the rate of glacier retreat by a
small amount... In the grand scheme of things this is not even a blip
on the graph...

So, in spite of AL G's hysterical wailings, global warming was not
caused by man and man cannot stop it, control it, or even slow it...
This warming cycle is mere foreplay leading up to the next cycle of
glaciation... Lean back, relax, and enjoy it... We are just along for
the ride... Tis better to live in a period of warming than to live in
a period of glaciation...

denny

[george]

On Apr 9, 11:28 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:

>
> If we could show Gore a way to make money for himself from advocating
> parsimony, he'd be on that band wagon in a heart beat.
>
You -could- always use him as a plug in one of those evil volcanoes
that are pumping thousands of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every
day...
At last, a use for old politicians

[Peter Dohm]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >>
> > In addition I recently heard that some surface reporting stations in
> > Siberia
> > ceased operation--so that data was simply omitted from the calculations.
> >
> > Since any resulting error would be in the "correct" direction, according
> > to
> > the current Gore sycophants, there is no reason to correct for the
missing
> > data, nor to work to put the reporting stations back on line.
>
> Even suface observations have been, historically, located in developed
> areas. Those areas are, today, greatly increased in size and
infrasturcture,
> that creates what;s known as "heat island effect".
>
> An honest scientists (redundant?) would correct for that; an
agenda-driven
> hack, OTOH, plays games with the data.
>
>
You're exactly right.

I was not familiar with the term, although I was familiar with the symptoms,
but "heat island effect" was almost certianly the phenomenon discussed in
the recent thread regarding "...colder at the approach end..."

Peter

[vincent p. norris]

> a mere Congressional representative.....

Jay, perhaps you playhed hookey the day your seventh-grade teacher
explained the order of succession to the Presidency.

vince norris

[Peter Dohm]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The current global warming pendulum is on a 15,000 year swing (and
> probably longer)... Mans production of CO2 since the industrial
> revolution has perhaps hastened the rate of warming... But, even
> without man on the planet the warming cycle would have occurred, the
> glaciers would have retreated, and we would be close to where we are
> now... At worst case we accellerated the rate of glacier retreat by a
> small amount... In the grand scheme of things this is not even a blip
> on the graph...
>
> So, in spite of AL G's hysterical wailings, global warming was not
> caused by man and man cannot stop it, control it, or even slow it...
> This warming cycle is mere foreplay leading up to the next cycle of
> glaciation... Lean back, relax, and enjoy it... We are just along for
> the ride... Tis better to live in a period of warming than to live in
> a period of glaciation...
>
> denny
>
Well said!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

vincent p. norris wrote:
>> a mere Congressional representative.....
>
> Jay, perhaps you playhed hookey the day your seventh-grade teacher
> explained the order of succession to the Presidency.
>
> vince norris

Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on the
international stage than the average representitive. Which is exactly zero.
Or maybe you missed that explination of the Constitution.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> vincent p. norris wrote:
>>> a mere Congressional representative.....
>>
>> Jay, perhaps you playhed hookey the day your seventh-grade teacher
>> explained the order of succession to the Presidency.
>>
>> vince norris
>
> Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on the
> international stage than the average representitive. Which is exactly
> zero. Or maybe you missed that explination of the Constitution.

THAT part was inconvenient.

[vincent p. norris]

>Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on the
>international stage than the average representitive.

You don't seem to understand how the House works.

vince norris

[Morgans[_2_]]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on the
>>international stage than the average representitive.
>
> You don't seem to understand how the House works.

Look at the constitution. The executive branch is the only ones that have
the authority to make international treaties.

Representatives should not be out conducting foreign policy. Especially
when it goes against the wishes of the branch that is charged with making
international policy.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

vincent p. norris wrote:
>> Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on
>> the international stage than the average representitive.
>
> You don't seem to understand how the House works.
>
> vince norris

So the unconstitutional activities of government representaitives doesn't
bother you? The Constitution clearly states that the President is the only
office that can make international treaties.

[Don Tabor]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:22:27 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>>> Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on
>>> the international stage than the average representitive.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand how the House works.
>>
>> vince norris
>
>So the unconstitutional activities of government representaitives doesn't
>bother you? The Constitution clearly states that the President is the only
>office that can make international treaties.

Not only treaties, Article 2 sections 2 & 3 give the executive the
power to appoint and to receive ambassadors and foreign ministers,
which are the only official contacts we have with foreign governments.
Though Presidents often give Congress Members ministerial assignments
when they go abroad, it is a clear violation of the Constitution for
members of Congress to speak for the United States with foreign
leaders outside those assignments.

For the leader of an opposing party to go abroad and negotiate with a
foreign leader to undermine the effectiveness of our official policy
by suggesting that they will get a better deal if they help the
opposition look good before an election is sedition at the least, and
perhaps, treason.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[vincent p. norris]

The three previous posters are correct (except for that overboard
remark about treason) , but the Constitution also gives the Congress
the power to make laws, and to conduct investigations thereto.

That includes laws relevant to our relations overseas.

BTW, how come none of you were upset when
Republican members of the House went overseas?

vince norris

[Don Tabor]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:52:54 -0400, vincent p. norris >
wrote:

>The three previous posters are correct (except for that overboard
>remark about treason) , but the Constitution also gives the Congress
>the power to make laws, and to conduct investigations thereto.
>
>That includes laws relevant to our relations overseas.

Pelosi certainly violated the largely unused Logan Act.

However, whether her actions rise to the level of treason would depend
on what agreements she made.

For example, if she were to promise (and I am making no allegation
that she did) that a Democratic President would give Syria some reward
if there were a large rise in violence just prior to the 2008
election, that would indeed be treason.

We do not know what was said in private, or if it undermined US policy
or military actions, but not having to consider such doubts is why we
have restrictions in the Constitution on who makes official contacts
with foreign governments. We need to speak with one voice to foreign
governments.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

vincent p. norris wrote:
> The three previous posters are correct (except for that overboard
> remark about treason) , but the Constitution also gives the Congress
> the power to make laws, and to conduct investigations thereto.
>
> That includes laws relevant to our relations overseas.
>
> BTW, how come none of you were upset when
> Republican members of the House went overseas?
>
> vince norris

Because they did so with the blessing of the President much like when the
Vice President does it. And I have no problem with the Speaker making the
trip to conduct investigations. I do have a problem when she trys to run her
own foreign policy unit. I saw a sound bite from an interview she did for
NBC's Today show. It was on NBC Nightly News last night. And she all but
said that she did it because she didn't like how GW was doing it.

At least we know now why she wanted a bigger plane. Though to be honest I
don't know if she used it for this trip.