Christopher P. Winter wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 04:54:48 -0700, "raylopez99" wrote:


http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/n...s_0512_05.html


You quote this study's result that planting trees in certain areas will warm
the globe by 2 to 6 degrees F. Then you call it an example of the absurdity
of modelling climate.

But the study is based on modelling climate: "The researchers used complex
climate modeling software to simulate changes in forest cover and then
examined the effects on global climate."

So which is it? Climate models good? Climate models bad? So which is it?

CPW--

You seem to have difficulties reading and understanding. Dyslexia
perhaps?

It is the latter.

RL

raylopez99 wrote:
my troll posts are thought provoking and good.

Actually both parties in the debate are being blindsided whilst a
monkey plays with the gross national product of 3 very important
countries. One powerful, one oil rich and one political dynamite. All
for a man who hasn't finished reading "My Pet Goat" to play with.

However in this case you have been trolled by people who haven't read
your original post. Have you not reacted precipitously?

On the issue of the whole glowing ball, is it really true that you can
rely on any resource that is open to manipulation from agencies with
massive resources and time enough to build intriguing webs?

Take a look at the sort of malfeasance that United Fruit got into over
the last two centuries and wonder what a monkey would do with that sort
of power.

Talk about the Third Reich; today's model politik is based on the Third
Banana Republic.

Weatherlawyer wrote:


Take a look at the sort of malfeasance that United Fruit got into over
the last two centuries and wonder what a monkey would do with that sort
of power.

Talk about the Third Reich; today's model politik is based on the Third
Banana Republic.

I read a book on the United Fruit company. Basically it acted as any
other monopolist, but to its credit it did come up with some innovation
(such as branding its fruit with the little stickers that are now
ubiquitous--it took them a while to find the best way to do this).
Also they bred certain bananas that do best in storage (since bananas
are picked green and ripen along the way--but not all banana species
are best for this)

The UF company was plagued by bad luck too (at least in this book,
written by their corporate PR guy): two suicides, including the CEO.

Later (and this is not in the book) apparently the UF company was
broken up by the Justice department due to political ('banana
republic') and monopoly concerns.

So you have to mix the good and the bad with UF, just like George Bush
and Big Oil.

Let me Wikipedia this... yes, the Wiki article on UF is good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company ("[the] reputation
for malfeasance, however, was somewhat offset among those who worked
for it or in the regions it controlled by the Company's later efforts
to provide its employees with reasonable salaries, adequate medical
care, and free private schooling")

RL

raylopez99 wrote:

So you have to mix the good and the bad with UF, just like George Bush
and Big Oil.

Let me Wikipedia this... yes, the Wiki article on UF is good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company ("[the] reputation
for malfeasance, however, was somewhat offset among those who worked
for it or in the regions it controlled by the Company's later efforts
to provide its employees with reasonable salaries, adequate medical
care, and free private schooling")

What is your definition of reasonable salaries and adequate medical
care? The sort of level that is available to impverished dark skinned
US citizens? Something only just a little worse?

The article wasn't written for an educational supplement by the CIA by
any chance was it? They also took the trouble to arrange the selective
murders of the opposition to the monolpolies. Who did you supose was
behind all the wars and resulting instability that marks Central and
South American politics and Nixonesque interventionism?

Or do you really believe that a continent could be held back from
sustained federal and economic progress if an evil empire had nothing
to gain from maintaining the exact opposite? You seem to forget the
history of the United States is one of robbing brown skinned people to
allow the whites supreme access to the **** heap.

raylopez99 wrote:

The UF company was plagued by bad luck too (at least in this book,
written by their corporate PR guy): two suicides, including the CEO.

RL

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...067e85a?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Oct 11 2005 11:51 am

So by acting like an idiot in the sense of
using provocative flame bait (albeit asking good questions at times) I
was able to generate some answers/opinions about the topics I was
interested in. Standard flamebait tactics, that I learned from the
early 1990s when the Internet evolved (note to reader: you will not
get many responses if you don't bait your reader--that's a fact I
learned over the years from experience).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...44c7e9b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2005 3:12 pm

CB--are you a troll like me? I've said I am a provocative troll, one
that makes good points, and sometimes I wonder if we're not in the same
camp.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...4daa4cd?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Fri, May 26 2000 12:00 am

Bob, you're not that bright, are you? This thread is flame bait. I
thought I made that clear last year, that I troll this NG just to see
what
morons will reply to my provocative posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...be8f1e7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 15 2006 1:17 a

You realize that a lot of what I say here is flame bait I hope.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...552dba7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 8:29 pm

Truth is however that despite my provocative flame-bait language--which
I've cultivated since the beginning of my posts to the Internet in
1994, when it was still text based--I am more right than wrong.
Flaming is just the spice to my posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...88b91b3?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 10 2006 1:30 am

But I am a troll.

RL

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...2a9b59b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Wed, Oct 5 2005 10:58 pm

Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
but I do learn a few things.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...fae1d3c?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Jul 12 2005 1:52 pm

and, if you've read this far --and you probably
shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
but a honest troll who raises good points, not a polemic hack

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...b1d7e52?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 11 2006 9:43 am

I was flaming in Usenet from the get-go. Even
once had Marvin Minsky bite on one of my trolls.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...8cc8260?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Mar 31 2005 10:49 pm

Truth be told I was trying to be
provocative with my language just to flame-bait you, but you did not
rise to the occasion.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...a19d088?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 17 2000 12:00 am

Truth is, I am not JUST a troll.

Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

On 23 Jul 2006 03:03:12 -0700, "raylopez99" wrote:

Christopher P. Winter wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 04:54:48 -0700, "raylopez99" wrote:


http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/n...s_0512_05.html


You quote this study's result that planting trees in certain areas will warm
the globe by 2 to 6 degrees F. Then you call it an example of the absurdity
of modelling climate.

But the study is based on modelling climate: "The researchers used complex
climate modeling software to simulate changes in forest cover and then
examined the effects on global climate."

So which is it? Climate models good? Climate models bad? So which is it?

CPW--

You seem to have difficulties reading and understanding. Dyslexia
perhaps?

It is the latter.

RL

Okay. I suggest you stop quoting the results of studies that are based on
a methodology you distrust.

On 23 Jul 2006 03:03:12 -0700, "raylopez99" wrote:

Christopher P. Winter wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 04:54:48 -0700, "raylopez99" wrote:


http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/n...s_0512_05.html


You quote this study's result that planting trees in certain areas will warm
the globe by 2 to 6 degrees F. Then you call it an example of the absurdity
of modelling climate.

But the study is based on modelling climate: "The researchers used complex
climate modeling software to simulate changes in forest cover and then
examined the effects on global climate."

So which is it? Climate models good? Climate models bad? So which is it?

CPW--

You seem to have difficulties reading and understanding. Dyslexia
perhaps?

It is the latter.

RL

Dyslexia? Not hardly. But yes, I did miss your point in that post. Now
that I see what you're driving at, the only comment I have is that there were
a lot more trees in recent historical times (i.e. the 1700s). If the world
had been even 2 degrees F warmer than it is today, I would think some effects
of that cooling would have been seen.

So maybe climate modelling is a waste of time -- or maybe this particular
study is bad.

Christopher P. Winter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 03:03:12 -0700, "raylopez99" wrote:

Christopher P. Winter wrote:

Dyslexia? Not hardly. But yes, I did miss your point in that post. Now
that I see what you're driving at, the only comment I have is that there were
a lot more trees in recent historical times (i.e. the 1700s). If the world
had been even 2 degrees F warmer than it is today, I would think some effects
of that cooling would have been seen.

So maybe climate modelling is a waste of time -- or maybe this particular
study is bad.

Yes, I agree with you Christopher P. Winter on this point. I think the
study by Carnegie is either flawed or perhaps the press release is
inaccurate. As for cooling from the 1700s, the proxy data is not
"precise" enough for us to make that determination IMO--who knows,
perhaps there has been cooling with the chopping down of trees (if,
that is, the Carnegie model is accurate, which I don't think it is).

BTW, Big Oil thanks you for reading this post.

RL

On 28 Jul 2006 11:59:26 -0700, "raylopez99" wrote (in
part):


BTW, Big Oil thanks you for reading this post.

RL

You really like to shoot yourself in the foot, don't you?