GuidoXVI wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:28:59 -0500, Rex Tincher wrote:

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists
got

After reading this little screed, I'll need a vat of the stuff.

media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

There have been warnings about CO2 buildup and its possible effect
on world climate since the 1960s. There was also, for a time, a
cooling trend that some scientists assumed was the start of another
ice age. World climate is a set of cycles within cycles. What its
trend looks like at any given moment is at least partly a function of
where you start examining the data.

It's 10 PM here - I've collected enough data over the past 6 hours to
confirm that Global Darkening is a reality! We must become more
enlightened! =)

Strider wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:32:59 -0700, "John Doe" wrote:

But I thought the earth was warming up? "Global warming". "The
Greenhouse affect".

thx.

Let's see, back in the 1970's, the first Earth Day, global cooling was
supposed to kill us all by 2000. Then in the 1980's it was global
warming that's our bane.

I get so confused, do I invest in more insulation or more sunscreen?

Strider

Lots of good books and videos. Otherwise, Global Continuation of
Whatever It's Done for Eons will kill you with boredom... ;^)

Jim Dauven wrote:
Well its kinda like this: The air is getting warmer because of the
green house gasses but the ground is getting colder because the
molten center of the earth is cooling off. Also all the freon that
gets loose cools the air next to the ground were as it gets warm and
rises in the atmosphere to destroy the ozone and then gets cold again
and sinks back to the ground to cool the ground. (:-o)

Global Bouncing!

So you see that we are getting hotter and colder at the same time.

(Let's see if anyone bites)

The Independent

My head hurts. Everyone turn on the oven and leave the door open. Do
the same with the Freezer. If nothing else, you can watch a miniature
simulation of warm and cold fronts in your kitchen as your bank account
runs dry...



Rex Tincher wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:13:54 GMT, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:32:59 -0700, "John Doe"
wrote:

But I thought the earth was warming up? "Global warming". "The
Greenhouse affect".

thx.

Let's see, back in the 1970's, the first Earth Day, global cooling
was supposed to kill us all by 2000. Then in the 1980's it was
global
warming that's our bane.

I get so confused, do I invest in more insulation or more sunscreen?

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists
got
media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they
can "cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and
reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human
motivators, especially in people who believe that they are too noble
to be subject
to greed and envy.

--
"And I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle,
loaded it into my little car, and drove home. It seemed so
incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."
- source: "A Good Fight", Sarah Brady, chapter 21, page 223
of first edition hardback, ISBN 1-58648-105-3

Strider wrote:


How about if we just go to the trouble to PROVE what the problem is
(if there is a problem) and PROVE what needs to be done about it
BEFORE disrupting the economy and personal freedom.

If the eco-nuts can prove to me that X causes global warming, global
warming is a bad thing, and Y will fix the problem, I'm in. What we
have is bull**** theories that even the scientists cannot agree upon.
Even worse, massive amount of money and restrictions on personal
freedom are invested in fixes for theoretical problems that, for all
they know, might make the situation worse.

Do not give me a bunch of crap theories. I want provable facts.

Strider

Update. My data now indicates that Global Darkening may have reached a
temporary plateau. I still urge all nations of the world to immediately
release as much hydrogen and helium into the atmosphere as possible to
help it become lighter again.

Ah yes, someone else who listens to the major media pushing their agenda and
NOT to the truth.

Dude, if you even WATCHED FNC / MSNBC / CNN you'd learn VERY quickly that
the majority is actually the minority and how those select few want this
country to be run, and get what they want.

come out of your cave, dig your head out of your ass and smell the sewage
infested gerth we call reality.

Or just watch FNC beyond Bill O'Reilly and maybe you'd see the light. oops,
maybe not. your too blinded by 'elite media'.

Oh and don't forget. These are just our opinions. Time (not the magazine)
will show the truth.

"GuidoXVI" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:28:59 -0500, Rex Tincher wrote:

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists got

After reading this little screed, I'll need a vat of the stuff.

media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

There have been warnings about CO2 buildup and its possible effect
on world climate since the 1960s. There was also, for a time, a cooling
trend that some scientists assumed was the start of another ice age. World
climate is a set of cycles within cycles. What its trend looks like at any
given moment is at least partly a function of where you start examining
the data.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they can
"cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human motivators,
especially in people who believe that they are too noble to be subject
to greed and envy.

Yes. We want to strip you of your worldly goods. You see, you
exist at the center of our universe, which is why we want to see as
much harm come to you and your kind as possible. Why? Oh, it doesn't
really matter, does it? You are you. We hate you. We want to see you
suffer because it suits us. Because it makes us happy.
/sarcasm

"Too noble to be subject to greed", my ass. What I'm looking
at is someone too caught up in his own BS to even try to understand
the truth. Right or wrong, there are serious scientists concerned
about global warming. There also appear to be at least a few who
aren't. Both have points to make. Perhaps you ought to try informing
yourself before jumping to conclusions.

If you ever decide you want to find out a little about
the history of the idea, do a Google search on "global warming history
(of) idea)". You'll find a considerable range of opinion.

Or, you could just go to some idiot right-wing conspiracy
website (www.foxnews.com, for instance) and you'll be treated to
your world just the way you like it.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:34:49 GMT, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

Strider wrote:


How about if we just go to the trouble to PROVE what the problem is
(if there is a problem) and PROVE what needs to be done about it
BEFORE disrupting the economy and personal freedom.

If the eco-nuts can prove to me that X causes global warming, global
warming is a bad thing, and Y will fix the problem, I'm in. What we
have is bull**** theories that even the scientists cannot agree upon.
Even worse, massive amount of money and restrictions on personal
freedom are invested in fixes for theoretical problems that, for all
they know, might make the situation worse.

Do not give me a bunch of crap theories. I want provable facts.

Strider

Update. My data now indicates that Global Darkening may have reached a
temporary plateau. I still urge all nations of the world to immediately
release as much hydrogen and helium into the atmosphere as possible to
help it become lighter again.


It seems like there is an excess of methane floating about.

Strider

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:26:26 +0000, Strider wrote:

How about if we just go to the trouble to PROVE what the problem is
(if there is a problem) and PROVE what needs to be done about it
BEFORE disrupting the economy and personal freedom.

Prove to me that invading Iraq, or Normandy for that matter,
was a good idea. I want a mathematically coherent proof not contradicted
by any known facts. Every public policy action, and many non-actions,
are done based on what seems like the best available evidence. They are
experiments, as Carl Sagan once pointed out, without good controls. We
thought Iraq was a threat (well, some people did), and we invaded. We
thought Normandy was the best place to open up a second front, so we
landed there. Both decisions can be argued with, but they may really
have been the best option.

If the eco-nuts can prove to me that X causes global warming, global
warming is a bad thing, and Y will fix the problem, I'm in. What we
have is bull**** theories that even the scientists cannot agree upon.
Even worse, massive amount of money and restrictions on personal
freedom are invested in fixes for theoretical problems that, for all
they know, might make the situation worse.

Trouble is, to prove it to your satisfaction, Manhattan
will have to be under 200 feet of water. There's already ample evidence
that the world's glaciers, including the Antarctic ice cap, are melting.
Whether this is mostly, entirely, or not at all due to the effects of
atmospheric CO2 and other pollution is the subject of the sensible
debate among scientists.

The sort of change that completely melts the ice caps,
according to the geological record, can happen within a few years. There
are certain feedback mechanisms that cause the melting to accelerate
once it's started. What this means is, by the time it's proved to your
satisfaction, it will be too late. That's why if you live anywhere near
an ocean, I'd suggest moving to higher ground.

Actually on second thought, please invest in beach front
property, and stay there no matter what foolishness you might hear
about the sea level rising. It's just those environmentalists trying
to ruin your life. Don't forget, making you miserable is what they
live for.

Do not give me a bunch of crap theories. I want provable facts.

Then find yourself a nice religion, because science isn't about
proving things to the satisfaction of all who don't want to believe them.
Science is about trying to find the theory that best fits the facts
available. At the moment, that would seem to be that the world is
getting warmer, at least partially due to the effect of atmospheric CO2.
With more data over a longer period of time, that could change.

Absolute certainty is for fools. The rest of us just have to
go with what appears to be right.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:34:49 +0000, Bob Harrington wrote:

It's 10 PM here - I've collected enough data over the past 6 hours to
confirm that Global Darkening is a reality! We must become more
enlightened! =)

Collect data for another twelve hours or so, and I think a
new theory will emerge. Science marches on!

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:15:26 GMT, GuidoXVI
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:26:26 +0000, Strider wrote:

How about if we just go to the trouble to PROVE what the problem is
(if there is a problem) and PROVE what needs to be done about it
BEFORE disrupting the economy and personal freedom.

Prove to me that invading Iraq, or Normandy for that matter,
was a good idea. I want a mathematically coherent proof not contradicted
by any known facts. Every public policy action, and many non-actions,
are done based on what seems like the best available evidence. They are
experiments, as Carl Sagan once pointed out, without good controls. We
thought Iraq was a threat (well, some people did), and we invaded. We
thought Normandy was the best place to open up a second front, so we
landed there. Both decisions can be argued with, but they may really
have been the best option.

Political arguments cannot be mathematically or scientifically solved.
Cures to global warming are presented as scientific fact. They are
just a stab in the dark.


If the eco-nuts can prove to me that X causes global warming, global
warming is a bad thing, and Y will fix the problem, I'm in. What we
have is bull**** theories that even the scientists cannot agree upon.
Even worse, massive amount of money and restrictions on personal
freedom are invested in fixes for theoretical problems that, for all
they know, might make the situation worse.

Trouble is, to prove it to your satisfaction, Manhattan
will have to be under 200 feet of water. There's already ample evidence
that the world's glaciers, including the Antarctic ice cap, are melting.
Whether this is mostly, entirely, or not at all due to the effects of
atmospheric CO2 and other pollution is the subject of the sensible
debate among scientists.

Finish the debate. Present the facts. Then we'll talk.


The sort of change that completely melts the ice caps,
according to the geological record, can happen within a few years. There
are certain feedback mechanisms that cause the melting to accelerate
once it's started. What this means is, by the time it's proved to your
satisfaction, it will be too late. That's why if you live anywhere near
an ocean, I'd suggest moving to higher ground.

None of this is shown to be caused by humans. In fact, it can pretty
well be shown to have happened in the past, long before people could
have had a role.


Actually on second thought, please invest in beach front
property, and stay there no matter what foolishness you might hear
about the sea level rising. It's just those environmentalists trying
to ruin your life. Don't forget, making you miserable is what they
live for.

Yup. The eco movement is so politicized that I have no doubt that the
eco-nut would dearly love to do me and everyone not in agreement with
them harm. Arson and terrorism have become a staple of the
environmental movement.

Do not give me a bunch of crap theories. I want provable facts.

Then find yourself a nice religion, because science isn't about
proving things to the satisfaction of all who don't want to believe them.
Science is about trying to find the theory that best fits the facts
available. At the moment, that would seem to be that the world is
getting warmer, at least partially due to the effect of atmospheric CO2.
With more data over a longer period of time, that could change.

Religion is about faithin something that cannot be proven. This is
exactly what the eco movement is about., faith is the unproven.


Absolute certainty is for fools. The rest of us just have to
go with what appears to be right.

I prefer more proof.

Strider

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:17:38 GMT, GuidoXVI
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:34:49 +0000, Bob Harrington wrote:

It's 10 PM here - I've collected enough data over the past 6 hours to
confirm that Global Darkening is a reality! We must become more
enlightened! =)

Collect data for another twelve hours or so, and I think a
new theory will emerge. Science marches on!

Probably so. Just as the environmental theories seem to shift, change,
and contradict each other every decade or so.

Strider