....ahahaha... awe.... "Bush's Global Warming Dereliction of Duty" in
"Awe ****" as who wrote in
ps.com...
[Awe ****]
Another Ray Lopez Crackpot Theory of Global Warming: "Doubt is Our
Product"

[raylopez99]
"Awe ****" snipped a bunch of crackpot disconcerted ramblings
... ,and pontificates in green anger
RAY LOPEZ uses the "cover story" that he is a troll and spews
flame-bait, to conceal the archived pattern that he only posts to
disrupt discussions in topic areas where fatcat corporations pay
saboteurs to disrupt and harrass and fatigue posters trying to discuuss
the issues that the corporations do not want discussed.

[hanson]
.... ahahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Hey, "Awe ****", I am sorry
to see that "RAY LOPEZ" so dearly cranked you. But that's what you
get for being a class 3 enviro. Here, for your benefit are the

Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green ****(s):
....are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
.... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
... are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.

hanson wrote:
...ahahaha... awe.... "Bush's Global Warming Dereliction of Duty" in
"Awe ****" as who wrote in
ps.com...
[Awe ****]
Another Ray Lopez Crackpot Theory of Global Warming: "Doubt is Our
Product"

[raylopez99]
"Awe ****" snipped a bunch of crackpot disconcerted ramblings
... ,and pontificates in green anger

http://snipurl.com/tzds
Google Results 1 - 100 of about 528,000 for Hanson "Child Molestation"
| probation | "Registered Sex Offender".

Roger Coppock wrote:

In an effort to give his drivel more than the zero creditability
that it deserves, Ray has cut and pasted some science URLs.
NOW, IF RAY WOULD ONLY READ THE SCIENCE!


raylopez99 wrote:

[ . . . ]


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ttribution.png

One problem I have always had with Wikipedia is that anyone including
Roger Coppock, or even myself can edit/enter what is written there. The
result is that it can include a lot of bias and fiction.

This is a beautiful graph -for the GW industry. It has a greater
"warming" than many other claims. The time span of 90 years has been
made very short on the graph, but the "temperature increase" (0.7
degrees) is elongated dramatically to emphasise a "sudden steep upward
trend of temperature". Another feature is the strategically placed zero
point. It conveniently eliminates all knowledge from studies over a
greater time period that places the zero point at some 2 - 3 degrees
higher than the zero point on that graph. This is classic political
spin doctoring, not science. Just compare it to the graph below (for the
design)!

How the hell can there be a claimed "warming" when they can't even agree
on a starting point, instead resort to whatever suites their agendas.

(2) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/

Minor temperature increase in the stratosphere has no effect on the
troposphere where the GW is taking place. Nor does this graph show any
temperature changes. There are other effects, eg on the ozone layer(s).

But this is also relevant to that graph (and more informative):

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/ghgases/
"Assumed histories of CO2, CH4, N2O and other trace gases(sic),...."

(3) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~makis/2006_04+05+06/Fig5a.txt

This appears to relate to the stratosphere again.


(4) Various links:


[ . . . ]

Orator wrote in
:

One problem I have always had


Energy has a gradation scale. Infrared energy is low-grade compared to
light. One photon of visible light can be transformed into several photons
of infrared radiation because visible light is higher-grade, more
energetic. Visible light works quite well to heat. Solar ovens made out of
pizza boxes covered with aluminum foil can get to 350 degrees temperatures
in midday. Magnifying lenses can burn wood by focussing visible light.
Heliostats exist which can generate 3,000 degree temperatures and melt any
metal on Earth. The Father of Chemistry, Lavosier, received a gift from
the king of a magnifying lens with a 10 foot focal length which achieved
near 3,000 degrees temperatures over 200 years ago. This is not new stuff,
or top secret knowledge. You should know this much before entering the
discussion.

Infrared is the energy radiated outwards from objects which have
transformed some higher species of energy. It is essentially a form of
waste product. It is on the downhill slope of entrophy.

Lots of things can generate heat: friction, electrical resistence,
chemical reactions. Infrared "heat" is the product of the event, not the
cause.

Do not use common sense. Use science and principles of rigorous
investigation. This is not a "guessing game".

You can reject that the Earth is round. It doesn't improve your
credibility in a science discussion.

Infrared is an electromagnetic energy that moves in straight lines at the
speed of light until it encounters a suitable physical object or a
cancelling equivilent photon. Some gases are essentially transparent to
the IR from the sun, and do not filter it at all. Any IR from the sun
pointed in this direction will arrive here in minutes. During daylight
hours the exosphere is heated to temperatures where Aluminum turns to
puddles -- there is an unquantified but small source of cancelling photons
at this strata. A certain quantity of IR then never gets closer than the
exosphere. The remainder of the IR which gets past the exosphere continues
through the mostly transparent upper layers, and unless it meets clouds on
the way down, will enter the biosphere, where it participates in the
normal processes of the atmosphere. Clouds will filter out additional IR
at high altitudes of cold temperatures where the IR kinetic contributions
are swiftly cancelled. The remainder will reach the Earth surface. "Not
all IR radiation" will make it through the several filters between the
Earth surface and the sun.

There is more to wikipedia than pretty pictures. Once you learn to read,
then you can read the articles too. Especially important in correcting
your ignorance are the articles which have been prepared by people much
better educated than yourself on the Earth's Atmosphere, and on each of
it's gases and on radiation wavelength, chemical properties of these
gases, absorption spectra and much much more.

At a junior high school level of explanation "CO2 blocks heat from
escaping". In a more adult and informed situation the correct description
is that CO2 is capable of incorporating infrared wavelength photons into
its molecular structure, thereby imparting higher kinetic energy values to
the molecule. It says the same essential thing but the big words are there
for a reason, and junior high schoolers are not equipped to parse the
concepts to understand the subtle details.

The heat coming in is not blocked from coming in. CO2 is not a mirror that
reflects infrared photons -- it is a sponge that soaks them up, and there
is no realistic limit on Earth how many photons CO2 can absorb. CO2
absorbs the incoming IR and the outgoing IR both, without preference or
discrimination. CO2 will not stop soaking up all the IR photons it can get
until it reaches thousands of degrees and explodes apart into its atoms.
Each IR photon will add kinetic energy as faster motion to the CO2 gas
molecule. The more IR photons contained in one molecule, the faster the
CO2 will jet around. The CO2 will inevitably collide with other molecules
and impart kinetic motion to them also, despite the fact that they are
transparent to IR energy directly themselves. The total sum kinetic energy
can be measured as heat, and is discussed using the word heat, but it is
physically kinetic motion.

In order to understand what is happening on the invisibly microscopic
level you need to refer to the analogy of professional skilled pool
players. Kinetic motion is imparted to the CO2 cue ball by the IR photon
stick. It crashes into another ball and several possibilities exist,
including that the cue ball stops dead in its tracks but the impacted ball
now flies off in a new direction with most of the energy from the
collision -- that is equivilent to releasing the IR energy back out of the
CO2 molecule, which is now depleted of that energy load. The energy still
exists as kinetic energy now possessed by some other gas molecule flying
around faster because it is energized with one quantum of IR photon
energy. Some collisions at just the right angles will cancel the kinetic
energy behind both, and thereby cause the emission of radiation as one or
more photons of IR.

There are a broad range of IR frequencies so one IR molecule going in can
come out as two of lower frequencies, one photon of visible light can
become 2, 3, or more photons of IR. Eventually the IR will degenerate into
frequencies which are not captured by any gas molecules and wend their way
offworld.

The rate between incoming energy at all wavelengths and the exit of energy
of all wavelengths is publically discussed as "Global Warming" because the
outgoing is not as fast a total rate as the incoming. The net higher
kinetic balance is the "warming" or "heat".

"Heat" is not the issue. Kinetic energy is the issue. Kinetic energy is
loosely translated as heat in common parlance, but we are not dealing with
common perceptions here -- we are dealing with the dangerous accumulations
of kinetic energy.

Water is a very poor interceptor of IR energy, and not a very good keeper
of it either. A clear glass bowl of water sitting in the sun will not heat
up appreciably warmer than the air temperature. In order to make solar
water heaters work, a black absorber needs to be added which absorbs
visible light energy and converts it into heat and then transfers that
energy by direct contact conduction to the water. Preferably a clear glass
or plastic cover needs to be provided to keep the infrared energy from
escaping about as fast as it is incoming, a "greenhouse" if you will, must
be added to make the solar water heater function as required.

CO2 is said to be the Earth's greenhouse gas cover, but more correctly it
is the black-absorber-equivilent to the solar water heater. CO2 is black
to many frequencies of IR. That shouldn't surprise you -- carbon is often
black to visible light in nature, as in coal or oil, although it comes in
clear forms too as diamonds or CO2 to visible light. As an IR sponge, an
absorber, the CO2 functions equivilently to a "greenhouse", but does not
have the same precise IR mechanisms. Glass and plastics are reflective
barriers, not practical absorbers of IR, so the "greenhouse" is more of a
metaphor used to educate the science-phobic portion of the public than it
is an actual science-based explanation of the physical mechanics.

"Orator" wrote in message
...
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ttribution.png

One problem I have always had with Wikipedia is that anyone including
Roger Coppock, or even myself can edit/enter what is written there. The
result is that it can include a lot of bias and fiction.

This is a beautiful graph -for the GW industry. It has a greater "warming"
than many other claims. The time span of 90 years has been made very short
on the graph, but the "temperature increase" (0.7 degrees) is elongated
dramatically to emphasise a "sudden steep upward trend of temperature".
Another feature is the strategically placed zero point. It conveniently
eliminates all knowledge from studies over a greater time period that
places the zero point at some 2 - 3 degrees higher than the zero point on
that graph. This is classic political spin doctoring, not science. Just
compare it to the graph below (for the design)!

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

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

Andronico-- yes, you're absolutely right. The higher order terms drop
off. Actually it's a binomial expansion, which as you may know is a
special case of a Taylor series.

Googling this I got a couple of dead links on the first page, but you
can dig for live links yourself:

Does E equal M C Squared?

Does E=mc2? Probably, but no thanks to Einstein. ... E = c p = c ·
mc(1-v2/c2)-1/2 = c · mc(1+v2/2c2)= m c2 + (1 ...

www-users.york.ac.uk/~cjb18/Teaching/StellarPhysics/StellarPhysics_Lecture10_2004.pdf
· S
(Hint: The binomial expansion is your friend.) ... According to
Einstein, those two inertial frames are absolutely equivalent.


RL

PS--don't believe everything that you read from the so-called "experts"
on this unmoderated NG. They have a hidden bias towards a certain
theory of GW--a theory that is _probably_ correct, but we need to study
it more.




anonymous wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:56:29 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

*in fact, it was shown mathematically back in the 18th century that any
continuous function can be modeled by a polynomial--the Taylor Series
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series) which are even used in
Einstein's General theory of relativity (the famous E = mc2 is actually
a truncated Taylor Series, there are more terms than just one on the
right hand side, a fact only physics majors know)--or as a series of
sinusoidal functions (the Fourier series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series )

OK. What are the next three terms?

E = mc**2 + ??? c**3 + ??? c**4 + ??? c**5 + ...

or maybe

E = mc**2 + ??? * m**2 + ??? * m**3 + ??? *m**4 + ...

I've not heard of this, nor can I find a web reference
--
Andronico

"raylopez99" wrote in
oups.com:

Andronico-- yes, you're absolutely right. The higher order terms drop



RAY LOPEZ uses the "cover story" that he is a troll and spews flame-bait, to conceal the archived pattern
that he only posts to disrupt discussions in topic areas where fatcat corporations pay saboteurs to disrupt
and harrass and fatigue posters trying to discuuss the issues that the corporations do not want discussed.

===========

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.


"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://www.markhertsgaard.com/Articl...shingtonSlept/
"... But if the deniers appear to have lost the scientific argument,
they prolonged the policy battle, delaying actions to reduce emissions
when such cuts mattered most. "For 25 years, people have been warning
that we had a window of opportunity to take action, and if we waited
until the effects were obvious it would be too late to avoid major
consequences," says Oppenheimer. "Had some individual countries,
especially the United States, begun to act in the early to mid-1990s,
we might have made it. But we didn't, and now the impacts are here."

"The goal of the disinformation campaign wasn't to win the debate,"
says Gelbspan. "The goal was simply to keep the debate going. When the
public hears the media report that some scientists believe warming is
real but others don't, its reaction is 'Come back and tell us when
you're really sure.' So no political action is taken."

Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who chaired the
1994 hearings where tobacco executives unanimously declared under oath
that cigarettes were not addictive, watches today's global-warming
deniers with a sense of déjà vu. It all reminds him of the
confidential slogan a top tobacco flack coined when arguing that the
science on smoking remained unsettled: "Doubt is our product." Now,
Waxman says, "not only are we seeing the same tactics the tobacco
industry used, we're seeing some of the same groups. For example, the
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was created [in 1993] to debunk
the dangers of secondhand smoking before it moved on to global
warming."

The scientific work Frederick Seitz oversaw for R. J. Reynolds from
1978 to 1987 was "perfectly fine research, but off the point," says
Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of
California, San Francisco, and a lead author of The Cigarette Papers
(1996), which exposed the inner workings of the Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation. "Looking at stress, at genetics, at lifestyle
issues let Reynolds claim it was funding real research. But then it
could cloud the issue by saying, 'Well, what about this other possible
causal factor?' It's like coming up with 57 other reasons for Hurricane
Katrina rather than global warming."

For his part, Seitz says he was comfortable taking tobacco money, "as
long as it was green. I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue.
We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent." Did the
research give the tobacco industry political cover? "I'll leave that to
the philosophers and priests," he replies. ..."

http://snipurl.com/txkv
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/?mod...cument_code=&d
ate_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=date

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/680110947.html
"... memorandum dated August 21, 1969 from J. W. Burgard to Mr. R. A: Pittman and others. The subject of
the memo is "Doubt. " The memo reads approximately as follows: "Doubt is our product since it is the best
means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of
establishing that there is a controversy. ...

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI04450339.html
It cited an Aug. 21, 1969, internal memorandum W. Burgard, Brown & Williamson's vice president for
marketing, saying. "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that
exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI22182043.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/12515397.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s4/TI25930219.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/267023.html Page 212: 0000267023
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/11839935.html Page 213: 0011839935

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI09110286.html Page 2: TI09110286
Documents obtained by the Federal Trade Commission show that as early as 1969 one tobacco company had
a plan to sow doubt and confusion in the public's mind about the validity of evidence linking smoking to
disease and death. The company's document says Doubt is our product since it is the best means of
competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of
establishing a controversy.

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/332501.html
.... our product as doubt, our message as truth -- welt stated, and our competition as the body of anti-
cigarette fact that exists in the public mind. We have chosen the mass public as our consumer for several
reasons: - This is where the misinformation about smoking und health has been focused. The Congress and
federal agencies are already being dealt with -- and perhaps as effectively as possible -- by the Tobacco
Institute. It is a group with little exposure to the positive side of smoking and health. It is the prime force in
influencing Congress and federal agencies without public support little effort would be given to a crusade
against cigarettes. Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that
exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. Within the
business we recognize that a controversy exists. However, with the general public the consensus is that
cigarettes are in some way harmful to the health. If we are successful in establishing a controversy at the
public level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health. Doubt is also
the limit of our "product".
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/332506.html

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."



"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."



"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."



"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

Actually, there's a simple explanation for ENSO influences: decadal
osciallations. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) follows the exact
same pattern mentioned previously, thus intensifying an El Nino or La
Nina, depending on the cycle (positive or negative).

More on the PDO can be found he
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

A similar cycle (AMO) in the Atlantic can influence hurricanes as well,
see:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...gbell_2002.pdf

-Nathan
http://www.GreenhouseTruth.com

In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

First, observe from link (1) below that there are two RITS in the
modern era (20th century). The first RIT happened from 1915 to 1945.
The second RIT happened from 1980 to present.

No, the first one had a slight plateau and then continued upwards. Look
at,
say, a titration curve, or a heating curve; you see this all the time in
science and nobody calls it two different processes.

I beg to differ.

But answer this: how can you square the fact that the peak of the El
Nino cycle coincides with the Middle ages (800AD+) warming period?
Coincidence? There was no man made CO2 (or very little) back then.


How do you know when the El Nino peaked?

Face it Lloyd: I've planted the seed of doubt in your small cranium.
And if you're smart it will grow. GW is caused by ENSO, not the other
way around.

These so-called AGWers are cult fanatics. It's not too late to be
deprogrammed Lloyd.

RL

[hanson]
Yo Ray, hi Andronico. It's good to hear from you.

series expansion
You guys are correct with/in your assessments.
But just like there are green ****s, green turds and
hordes of little green idiots in environmentalism there
are legions of Einstein dingle berries in Physics.

Both, the relativity dingle berries and the little green
idiots are folks that have only feelings but no mentation
on/for their issues since they are all emotionally crippled
individuals who need to have an icon to justify their
miserable, penniless existence and they require some
famous figure to justify their intellectual cowardice.

It is very refreshing to see cerebral individuals like you
to lend their precious time to enlighten the little
green idiots in these weather/climate issue related NGs.

You do understand though that your efforts are in vain
to make the little green idiots to have a critical look at
what the green turds are feeding them. With them it is like
asking an Imam to go to Jerusalem to convert the Jews,
or vs/vs for a rabbi to go to Teheran and convince the ruling
Islamist regime that they are full of **** too..... ahahaha....
(Andronico see end of post)

----------------
"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
Andronico-- yes, you're absolutely right. The higher order terms drop
off. Actually it's a binomial expansion, which as you may know is a
special case of a Taylor series.

Googling this I got a couple of dead links on the first page, but you
can dig for live links yourself:

Does E equal M C Squared?

Does E=mc2? Probably, but no thanks to Einstein. ... E = c p = c ·
mc(1-v2/c2)-1/2 = c · mc(1+v2/2c2)= m c2 + (1 ...

www-users.york.ac.uk/~cjb18/Teaching/StellarPhysics/StellarPhysics_Lecture10_2004.pdf
· S
(Hint: The binomial expansion is your friend.) ... According to
Einstein, those two inertial frames are absolutely equivalent.


RL

PS--don't believe everything that you read from the so-called "experts"
on this unmoderated NG. They have a hidden bias towards a certain
theory of GW--a theory that is _probably_ correct, but we need to study
it more.

-------------------------
anonymous wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:56:29 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

*in fact, it was shown mathematically back in the 18th century that any
continuous function can be modeled by a polynomial--the Taylor Series
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series) which are even used in
Einstein's General theory of relativity (the famous E = mc2 is actually
a truncated Taylor Series, there are more terms than just one on the
right hand side, a fact only physics majors know)--or as a series of
sinusoidal functions (the Fourier series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series )

OK. What are the next three terms?

E = mc**2 + ??? c**3 + ??? c**4 + ??? c**5 + ...

or maybe

E = mc**2 + ??? * m**2 + ??? * m**3 + ??? *m**4 + ...

I've not heard of this, nor can I find a web reference
--
Andronico

-------------------

[hanson]
Andro, go post your issue into sci. physics and sci physics.relativity
and you will stir up and other hornets' nest.... ahahaha...

Have fun you guys and listen to poster "Awe ****", a feebly paid
apprentice shill employed by one of the far right think tanks.
"Awe ****" is undoubtedly the most effective poster to make
environmentalism look REALLY BAD and discredits the notions
of the little green idiots who hang around here like web-lice
and net-fleas.....ahahaha... ahahanson

PS: google/groups for -- [sci.environment hanson "Awe ****" ]---
to see who this valuable agent provocateurs "Awe ****" is .
"Awe ****'s" sole mission is to enrich the already rich oil bosses
even more..... ahahaha...
Buy oil stocks and hold onto them until the new fields and the
upgraded refining/processing equipment go online and do
deliver the next oil glut.