In article , says...


"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article , says...


"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...

Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite
expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.

So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet settled?

Lawyer science is not real science.

Neither is agenda driven science. Those climate scientists that are upset
over a legal skirmish is proof of an agenda.

My experience is that the GW denialist crowd are the ones with the agenda.
James has never given us a reason for his interest in the politics and not
in the scientific knowledge of the problem. Does he too have an agenda?

There is no interest in bogus science unless it's an agenda. It's an issue.
Not a problem.

Not an answer, James. How can you say some of the science is bogus without
taking the time to understand the science? So far, you have bragged about your
ignorance of the scientific side of the question, instead relying on others
that claim the science is poor. YOU are the one with an agenda and it is part
of the problem.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article , says...
"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article , says...
"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...

My experience is that the GW denialist crowd are the ones with the
agenda.
James has never given us a reason for his interest in the politics and
not
in the scientific knowledge of the problem. Does he too have an agenda?

There is no interest in bogus science unless it's an agenda. It's an
issue.
Not a problem.

Not an answer, James.

That answer reminds me of the stuff produced by those anti-spam-blocking
programs. It's all grammatical and comes strangely close...but makes no
sense.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

In article , says...
In article pFhae.768$yc.678@trnddc04, says...

Eric Swanson wrote:

Science, Vol 308, Issue 5721, 482 , 22 April 2005
[DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5721.482]

Global Warming Skeptic Argues U.S. Position in Suit

Eli Kintisch

[cut]


This is a very dangerous tactic for this US government to argue, because
if they loose, the principal that anthropic changes are causing global
changes is established in law.

If so, this could get interesting.....

The case is in the 9th circuit court, California Northern District.
It's case number 3:2002cv04106.

There is more information (for free) about the court case, including the
statements by MacCracken and Legates at:

http://www.climatelawsuit.org/

I notice that Legates, who is a recognized expert on precipitation analysis
by satellite, chooses to ignore the MSU temperature record. He dwells on the
surface record and claims the Urban Heat Island has biased the data to cause
the positive trend. The fact that the satellite temperature record does not
have an UHI influence yet still shows a warming trend would seem to refute
this claim. I think it's quite telling that he ignores this important piece
evidence, after the satellite record has been the centerpiece of the denialist
campaign for so many years now.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article , says...


"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article , says...


"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...

Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite
expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.

So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet
settled?

Lawyer science is not real science.

Neither is agenda driven science. Those climate scientists that are
upset
over a legal skirmish is proof of an agenda.

My experience is that the GW denialist crowd are the ones with the
agenda.
James has never given us a reason for his interest in the politics and
not
in the scientific knowledge of the problem. Does he too have an
agenda?

There is no interest in bogus science unless it's an agenda. It's an
issue.
Not a problem.

Not an answer, James. How can you say some of the science is bogus
without
taking the time to understand the science? So far, you have bragged about
your
ignorance of the scientific side of the question, instead relying on
others
that claim the science is poor. YOU are the one with an agenda and it is
part
of the problem.

This is typical transference when agenda driven folk have no answer. Quite
common really. I noticed you had no answer. Just a "so's your old man". LOL

In article , says...


"Eric Swanson" wrote...
says...
"Eric Swanson" wrote...
says...
"Eric Swanson" wrote ...
says...

Well done. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert--the
Third Law of Litigation.

So why jump to conclusions about GW when things are not yet settled?

Lawyer science is not real science.

Neither is agenda driven science. Those climate scientists that are upset
over a legal skirmish is proof of an agenda.

My experience is that the GW denialist crowd are the ones with the agenda.
James has never given us a reason for his interest in the politics and not
in the scientific knowledge of the problem. Does he too have an agenda?

There is no interest in bogus science unless it's an agenda. It's an issue.
Not a problem.

Not an answer, James. How can you say some of the science is bogus without
taking the time to understand the science? So far, you have bragged about your
ignorance of the scientific side of the question, instead relying on others
that claim the science is poor. YOU are the one with an agenda and it is part
of the problem.

This is typical transference when agenda driven folk have no answer. Quite
common really. I noticed you had no answer. Just a "so's your old man". LOL

I see no question to me in the above series of exchanges.
I do see 2 questions to you regarding the possibility that you have an agenda.
I still contend that you are the one with the agenda.

James, what are you smoking these days?

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ray, Hanson, and James need a clue. The courts will find
fossil fool denialist junk science to be a stupid scam,
just like the water into gasoline hustle, the tobacco
lobby's "T-Zone," or "creation science." After that
precedent is established, one court after another will
drop kick fossil fool ass. A year or three from now,
you and the rest of the fossil fool flunkies will be
crying big crocodile tears claiming that the courts are
all part of the same conspiracy you now claim includes
he overwhelming majority of scientists, world governments,
media, and people who have an IQ above room temperature.

"hanson" wrote nothing of consequence...

U.S. Prison Population Soars in 2003, '04

By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Growing at a rate of about 900 inmates each week
between mid-2003 and mid-2004, the nation's prisons and jails
held
2.1 million people, or one in every 138 U.S. residents, the
government reported Sunday.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ray, Hanson, and James need a clue. The courts will find
fossil fool denialist junk science to be a stupid scam,
just like the water into gasoline hustle, the tobacco
lobby's "T-Zone," or "creation science." After that
precedent is established, one court after another will
drop kick fossil fool ass. A year or three from now,
you and the rest of the fossil fool flunkies will be
crying big crocodile tears claiming that the courts are
all part of the same conspiracy you now claim includes
he overwhelming majority of scientists, world governments,
media, and people who have an IQ above room temperature.


So now you get your science from the courts. Well, they are known to make
law from the bench. Why not science? It can't be proven any other way.

See, knowing that the courts will not accept your fossil fool
lies, you are already bashing them, James!
=-=-=-=-=-=
Ray, Hanson, and James need a clue. *The courts will find
fossil fool denialist junk science to be a stupid scam,
just like the water into gasoline hustle, the tobacco
lobby's "T-Zone," or "creation science." *After that
precedent is established, one court after another will
drop kick fossil fool ass. *A year or three from now,
you and the rest of the fossil fool flunkies will be
crying big crocodile tears claiming that the courts are
all part of the same conspiracy you now claim includes
he overwhelming majority of scientists, world governments,
media, and people who have an IQ above room temperature.