Weather Banter - CO2 RISE: A 6 DF CURVE FIT

"raylopez99" wrote in
oups.com:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article . com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
Actually Roger Crappock, String Theory in physics postulates that the
speed of light indeed slows down in certain parts of the universe.
Real science is like that--it has surprises, not like the "linear"
science you preach.

And just how accepted is string theory?

You don't know Lloyd? I thought you had all the answers. It's not
that well accepted--some think it's a bigger crock than the worst
excesses of AGW deniers.

But the point is that if you are to freeze the world's biggest economy,
if you are to create WWIII with pro-anti-global-warming tactics, if you
are to impoverish billions of people by adopting even more stringent
treaties than Kyoto--in short, if you are to stop all man made CO2--
you better have all your facts straight, not just 51% correct as the
latest version of the AGW hypothesis has it.

Put simply: AGW is not ready for prime time. Further research is
needed.

RL

Ray Lopez Lies. He Got Caught.

This Posting by Ray Lopez is an advertisement sponsored by EXXON

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 discuss the issues that the
corporations do not want discussed.

===========

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...0a067e85a?hl=e
n& 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...0b88b91b3?hl=e
n& 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...ebb1d7e52?hl=e
n& 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...t+is+our+produ
ct%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_pa ge=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."