To My Friends In South Texas This Evening

"Swingman" wrote:

> I just finished the last bowl I made for Thanksgiving last night
... to
> hell with turkey!

If you want an argument, change the subject.

As my departed mother often said, "I just never quite get hungry
enough to eat turkey."

I agree with mom.

Lew

"Leon" wrote:

> Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret
> what I am seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.
>
> I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for
> this period of time but there are other places that are getting
> colder. Take the South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing
> for years.
>
> I totally believe that those that believe in global warming "trend",
> don't have enough data to make a proper assessment.

Would you mind sharing your vetted source you used to reach your
observations?

Lew

"Leon" wrote:

> How about you show me scientific data from 800 years ago, and all
> years since.

Interesting comment but how does it provide a vetted source to support
your previous observation?

Lew

"Leon" wrote:

> Global Warming is a myth.

Just curious, what makes you say that?

Lew

In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Leon wrote:
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > It's the American Way. That is not a slight against 'The Way', but
> > think about it. IF Global Warming is a problem, wouldn't you be glad
> > to spend a few billion to fix/solve that problem?
> >
> > Global Warming is a myth. Ultimately the government is going to tax
> > me to once again try to repair something that is not broken.
>
> If it _is_ a problem, "a few billion" isn't going to fix it anyway. The US
> share alone would be at a minimum about thirty trillion dollars if I
> remember the numbers I worked out a while back correctly, (and likely much
> more). Then there are the wars to pull the plug on all the third world
> emitters that refuse to clean up. And some of those third world emitters
> are nuclear-armed.

There's all sort of spin being put on the leaked data from the CRU. My
reading is:

-- The scientists involved do not have confidence in the data, and
resorted to software manipulation to make the data fit predictions.

-- The scientists involved deliberately stonewalled publication of
dissenting scientific opinions, to the point of having editors of
science journals removed.

-- At least one of the software engineers tasked with updating the
software used for modelling climate had no faith in the integrity of
the data he was using in the models.

-- "The dog ate my data." so nobody can go back and re-run the models
in any event.

This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing (hint,
it is).

The scandal is the incredible subversion of scientific inquiry, the
peer review process and the ability to review scientific inquiry.

The whole affair stinks of "cold fusion" to me.

Every "climatologist" should resign their tenured positions
immediately, as the "science" is demonstrably false. They all need to
go back to school and study mathematics.

On Dec 5, 10:26 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >It's the American Way.
>
> Aw fuck this. Why don't we just buy Canuckistan and keep it as a cold
> storage pantry until the global warming thing kicks in. Once it's
> actually habitable we might be able to make a couple of euros on it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Watson

Well, maybe not as far fetched as you think! The bill is on the
table....

http://tinyurl.com/oey2

However, I don't think we could stand the whining about beer, cheating
at hockey, "real football", and we certainly don't need anyone else
filled with self loathing about being Americans in tears about the
country and how we fuck the world over at every opportunity.

Maybe there's a reason we haven't invaded... I'm not sure we want it.

If you watch this you will even see why I don't use a MAC. (I never
knew what it stood for.... ;^ ) ) From a Canadian site:

http://video.canadiancontent.net/1996658-southpark-blame-canada.html

I wouldn't vote for it....

Robert

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:051220091913388196%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> Snip
>
> >
> > This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing (hint,
> > it is).
>
> And climate change is not the issue. We are talking global warming. Whe
> have climate change seasonally.
>

That was my point. Global warming is not happening, and the leaked
documents (not just the email) from the CRU demonstrate that the
"scientists" screaming that the earth is warming KNOW that it's not
happening.

Some of these same "scientists" were screaming that we were going to
enter an ice age, back in the 1970s.

This is a classic "follow the money" scenario.

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Not to mention that neither politics, nor religion, have any place
> whatsoever in true scientific endeavor ... and this 'man made global
> warming movement', and the oligarchical proposed remedy, has more than a
> tinge of religiosity to it.

I agree 100%

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:061220091414446238%
> >> >
> >> > This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing (hint,
> >> > it is).
> >>
> >> And climate change is not the issue. We are talking global warming. Whe
> >> have climate change seasonally.
> >>
> >
> > That was my point. Global warming is not happening, and the leaked
> > documents (not just the email) from the CRU demonstrate that the
> > "scientists" screaming that the earth is warming KNOW that it's not
> > happening.
> >
> > Some of these same "scientists" were screaming that we were going to
> > enter an ice age, back in the 1970s.
> >
> > This is a classic "follow the money" scenario.
>
>
> Sorry Dave, I misunderstood you comments. I apologize. Totally agree with
> your last comment about the money.

No worries, Leon. Sometimes *I* misunderstand my comments. <g>

In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that
> operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea cores,
> and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena go back
> hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended the
> historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric
> concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG)
> back to 420,000 years before present.
>
> This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so.
> Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh
> water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline
> circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in
> these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science popularity
> in certain political arenas.

What I'm seeing from the "skeptics", many of whom are scientists (for
instance at wattsupwiththat.com), is that they want science to be done.

The reluctance of the CRU, as evident in the emails, to have their work
scrutinized is not an attitude that scientists should hold.

For that reason alone, their work is suspect.

In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:

> that is accepted by IPCC,


Why is this a requirement?

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:53:46 -0800, the infamous jo4hn
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
>reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global warming",
>that the problem will go away. And further that there never was a
>problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow. Thank you for
>clearing that up.

There -ARE- no doomsayers on the right, jo4hn. All you Chicken
Littles are on the left.

And most of us on the right don't say there is -no- global warming,
we're saying that there is no cause for alarm and that man isn't
causing it. It's far mellower than you lefties rant about. Earth is
still coming out of the last ice age on a very slowly warming trend,
not the left's hockey stick.

Go watch _Day After Tomorrow_ again and get your facts straight. ;)

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

J. Clarke wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> jo4hn wrote:
>>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but
>>>>>>> I no longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the
>>>>>>> movement hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the
>>>>>>> greenies now. <sigh>
>>>>>> As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
>>>>>> project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the
>>>>>> land fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual
>>>>>> traditional construction projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many
>>>>>> of the misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all
>>>>>> warm, fuzzy, self congratulatory, and without a clue!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this.
>>>>> There are two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say
>>>>> that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent
>>>>> way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works, and
>>>>> teleologists -- those who say that the universe is an ideal place.
>>>>> From what I read: "More or less, it exists so that we humans
>>>>> can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the
>>>>> universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically
>>>>> pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly
>>>>> believe in something, it’ll happen."
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/>
>>>>>
>>>>> The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter
>>>>> persuasion. They don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked
>>>>> before -- it just wasn't done correctly, they are going to do it
>>>>> correctly. If the idea of a "green" economy feels good, by golly,
>>>>> it will be good. Ignore those niggling little details like more
>>>>> waste or less available resourced -- by golly it FEELS good!
>>>>>
>>>> So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
>>>> reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global
>>>> warming", that the problem will go away. And further that there
>>>> never was a problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow.
>>>> Thank you for clearing that up.
>>> The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity
>>> and using models that have not been validated to support their
>>> politicking. There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our
>>> society--trusting anyone who claims to be a "scientist" without
>>> question. Most sciences are in their infancy--the only ones with
>>> any real maturity are physics and chemistry, with biology getting
>>> there. Climatology is very immature and basing social policy on its
>>> models is about as wise as basing social policy on the ravings of
>>> alchemists or astrologers.
>>>
>> Is that "scientism" or the opposite?
>
> It is scientism. Google that word.
>
>> I am getting a lot of the latter
>> from the right wingers.
>
> What, distrust of climatologists? Skepticism is a necessary part of the
> scientific process--anyone who is calling the climatologists liars is
> behaving more like a proper scientist than all the folks who are saying "we
> should trust them because they are scientists".
>
>> Oh and your last sentence is just plain
>> ignorant meanness and bespeaks much of you.
>
> Oh, now _there_ is a compelling rebuttal if ever I saw one.
>
The opposite of scientism or anti-scientism if you want. It's the idea
that if one spouts anything long enough and loudly enough, it will be
believed. It will still not be true however. A good example is calling
climatologists liars without any *scientific* proof.

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:58:21 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>in 124809 20091207 153644 "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Leon wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Leon" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Global Warming is a myth.
>>>>
>>>> Just curious, what makes you say that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret
>>> what I am seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.
>>>
>>> I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for
>>> this period of time but there are other places that are getting
>>> colder. Take the South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing
>>> for years.
>>
>>What parts are getting warmer? The average temperature has been steadily
>>declining since 1996. And even if it IS getting warmer, it's no where near
>>what it was during the Medieval Warm Period (a time of great prosperity).
>
>Might I suggest you get your facts from NASA rather than from Fox News or your
>childrens' comics?
>The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years.
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Nasa is to skeptics what Fox News is to liberals, Bawb. <sigh>

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

Swingman wrote:

> We were going to use ureas formaldehyde FREE
Add ^^^^


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Larry Jaques wrote:

> Please expand on that if you will, Swingy. What's the nature of the
> new waste?

Don't get me started ...

Project in question was alternative construction (straw bale wall)
house, green material as much as possible throughout. Notice the plywood
and framing material, steel and concrete going into just the foundation
of this single family, new residential construction, of less than 2500sf:

http://picasaweb.google.com/karlcaillouet/Foundation1#

I've found that most of the new "green" products (the few
> which are available around here) are about 50% higher in cost than
> standard mat'ls, despite the trade mags showing only a 10% increase.
> And look what it's done to the cost of finishes. Waterlox has doubled
> in price since I last bought it, and their VOC-free finishes are
> higher than that: $105 per gallon now!

We were going to use ureas formaldehyde, sustainable, bamboo plywood
wood in the cabinets and built-ins until we found out the budget busting
prices, upwards of $300/sheet.

Oddly enough, much of Home Depot's plywood (from Columbia Forest
Products) is made with urea formaldehyde free glue.

Lowe's has "Fresh Aire", no VOC, paint which we used on the interior of
this house ...I was quite happy with the results and the price wasn't
all that out of line with other premium indoor paints.

I tried to get other low or no VOC products/stains from them that they
advertise in other locales and was informed that they were not allowed
to ship these across state lines??

Still trying to figure that one out ....

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 7, 7:16 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

> But Robert, Robert, it's true!!
>
> I see them every day, even on TV. I tell Linda I can spot'em a mile
> away. Their eyes are close together, on either side of big noses; and
> you can see all their front teeth, with even the whisp of a smile. Sorta
> like the ballon boys father, or Jerry Seinfeld!
>
> I tell ... it's true!!!

HAH!

I knew it wasn't just me. I see them, too.

But the ones that really trouble me are the ones that come in the
quiet of the night. They wait until I have a few bourbons under my
belt, a good cigar, and my defenses are down.

By the time I am half way down a fifth, they are trying to enlighten
me, but I don't understand. Too much information.

And the next morning when I wake up, the powerful drugs they have
given me make my head ache and my memory blurry... sometimes a little
nauseous as well.

I can't make heads or tails out of their visit the next day, but I
notice they always manage to kill what I leave in the bottle as it is
always empty the next morning. Bastards.

At this rate I won't be any smarter than the rest of the guys around
here. All I will be stuck with is the notion that whatever pieces of
information that I have read and believe are the actual and only
truth.

Damn those aliens.

Bastards.

Robert)

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:59:33 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>> "Leon" wrote:
>>
>>> Global Warming is a myth.
>> Just curious, what makes you say that?
>
> Let's put it this way: Anthropogenic Global Warming(kumbaya), as
> warned about by the alarmists, is a myth. Most of us realize that the
> Earth is coming out of an ice age and has been slowly warming, but not
> at anywhere _near_ the rate the alarmists spew.

To that point:

http://tinyurl.com/yzkqzqf


>
> Lew, see if your local library has a copy of Peter Huber's _Hard
> Green_. It will likely give you a fresh perspective on what we humans
> deem important and how the "Green" movement is affecting us, both
> positively and negatively. It's an important book and I hope you do
> read it.
>
> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
> <sigh>

"Conservation" is the preservation of natural resources in mankind's
own self interest. "Environmentalism" - as usually constituted -is a
form of earth worshiping pantheism.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

jo4hn wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>>
>> Here is the GISS ranking I was looking for which does not involve a
>> right or left wing blog:
>>
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc
>>
>
> vielen Dank.

Bitte schön ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 4, 8:14=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Watson wrote:
> > Ain't this Global Warming A Bitch!?!
>
> We were warned:
>
> "However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time,
> when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they
> find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past
> three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological
> Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather
> aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." -=
- =A0
> Time Magazine
>
> http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
>
> On another group I predicted:
> ---
> * School closings.
> * Freeway closings.
> * Runs on canned goods, candles, batteries, and strawberry pop-tarts.
> * Widespread panic as residents try to flee by going south only to discov=
er
> the Gulf of Mexico. They will weep uncontrollably.
> * Overflowing emergency rooms and church pews.
> * Flight cancellations (there are NO snow plows at Houston airports).
> * Confusion on the part of feral cats.
> * A drop-off in crime as goblins conclude they're having a bad trip.
> * A five or six-fold increase in auto collisions.
> * Reporters will contribute to the mass unrest ("This just in: The Kroger
> store on Left Elbow Ave. is OUT OF BOTTLED WATER. Residents advised to ru=
n
> for their lives!").
> * Children, bundled up in every bit of clothing they own, will scrape sno=
w
> from car hoods and construct six-inch high snowmen. They will call it goo=
d.
> * There will be NO keg parties as there were during hurricane Yikes. Some
> will swear off booze entirely (these heart-felt oaths have usually been
> proven to be temporary).
>
> Pray for us.
> ---
> For a report on the devastation, visitwww.chron.com, the website of the
> Houston Chronicle. Note also the user-contributed pictures there of the r=
ack
> and ruin wroght by the wrathful gods. Also note the front-page instructio=
ns
> on how to steer out of a skid.
>
> It hasn't snowed this early in Houston since they started keeping records=
,
> right after our Second War of Independence.

This was the first snow-free November in 162 years in the City Of
Toronto.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
not that it means anything, but those global warming doom-sayers are
creating a lot of heat with their jaws.

I may as well jump into this discussion, also. I'm not knowledgeable
with facts, so lets speculate some more. How will the world end?
http://www.endofworld.net/

Sonny

On Dec 4, 9:21=EF=BF=BDpm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sonny wrote:
> > And those Houston folks sent it east, to us here in south LA. Records
> > show it has never snowed here on Dec 4th, until this evening. =EF=BF=BD=
Last
> > year it snowed on Dec 11th. =EF=BF=BDThe gumbo was perfect, both times.
>
> Whereabouts, cher?
>
> I just finished the last bowl I made for Thanksgiving last night ... to
> hell with turkey!
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

Lafayette.

Sonny

On 12/08/2009 03:03 PM, CW wrote:

> Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next week
> right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can be
> predicted with accuracy.

I can't predict when I'm going to die, but the life insurance companies
can predict with pretty good accuracy how many people will die this year
across the whole country.

Chris

On 2009-12-05 02:50:03 -0500, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> said:

> As my departed mother often said, "I just never quite get hungry enough
> to eat turkey."
>
> I agree with mom.

Mom was a smart woman, obviously.

And those Houston folks sent it east, to us here in south LA. Records
show it has never snowed here on Dec 4th, until this evening. Last
year it snowed on Dec 11th. The gumbo was perfect, both times.

Sonny

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:15:56 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Please expand on that if you will, Swingy. What's the nature of the
>> new waste?
>
>Don't get me started ...
>
>Project in question was alternative construction (straw bale wall)
>house, green material as much as possible throughout. Notice the plywood
>and framing material, steel and concrete going into just the foundation
>of this single family, new residential construction, of less than 2500sf:
>
>http://picasaweb.google.com/karlcaillouet/Foundation1#

Hayseuss Crisco, is that one inch rebar? Huh, a concrete foundation
supported off the ground, on piers?!? Whut up wi dat?


>I've found that most of the new "green" products (the few
> > which are available around here) are about 50% higher in cost than
> > standard mat'ls, despite the trade mags showing only a 10% increase.
> > And look what it's done to the cost of finishes. Waterlox has doubled
> > in price since I last bought it, and their VOC-free finishes are
> > higher than that: $105 per gallon now!
>
>We were going to use ureas formaldehyde, sustainable, bamboo plywood
>wood in the cabinets and built-ins until we found out the budget busting
>prices, upwards of $300/sheet.

You meant "urea/formaldehyde-free" didn't you? I've seen bamboo ply
for cabinets as low as $94/sheet. I haven't seen it up close, though.
But if the client wants it, just have them adjust their budget up for
it. It's only a grand more for a really beautiful kitchen.


>Oddly enough, much of Home Depot's plywood (from Columbia Forest
>Products) is made with urea formaldehyde free glue.

OK.


>Lowe's has "Fresh Aire", no VOC, paint which we used on the interior of
>this house ...I was quite happy with the results and the price wasn't
>all that out of line with other premium indoor paints.

They've sure shot up recently, haven't they? Wow!


>I tried to get other low or no VOC products/stains from them that they
>advertise in other locales and was informed that they were not allowed
>to ship these across state lines??
>
>Still trying to figure that one out ....

Maybe they're taking Clintoon's stance, depending on what the meaning
of VOC is...

So, what brands are not shippable, please? I want to look into this
deeper.

--
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen
to what the world tells you you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson

jo4hn wrote:

> calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
> notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Not if you don't allow, or actively discourage, peer review. Proof of
that happening is available, but you just don't seem to be hearing about
it from the AP.

Just call me skeptical/suspicious as to why ... but I'll be glad to
change my mind if someone can refute it beyond doubt and from an
unbiased source.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 5, 8:14 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I recall seeing snow in south and south east Texas 5 times in 55 years. It
> had snowed significantly 3 times in the last 5 years.

I think that's about right. The last big snow we had (for us...) was
in '85 or so, and it snowed something like 12". With no snow tires,
no snow equipment for the roads, no snow "stuff" at all, it was a wild
time. I made a lot of money repairing those metal carports that are
favored at apartment complexes as they simply collapsed under the
weight of the snow.

<< I >> remember drinking a lot of coffee and watching the delighted
kids make snowmen, throw snowballs, and make snow angels.

I remember how ugly it was when all that thawed out, too.

We can take 6" of water a day without much of a hitch. A string of
105F days is OK, too.

I was so damn thankful that snow missed us. They thought it would
dust us a bit, but unless you were in the extreme north part of the
city you didn't get anything.

However, I am expecting some fun pictures of my nephew playing in snow
in sunny Houston soon. I am SURE he is enjoying the above mentioned
activities to their fullest extent!

Helluva weather year, eh Leon?

We had 61 days over 100 degrees this summer, and another 17 at 100.
Now just 2 1/2 months later, it's snowing! Cheer up though. I think
next week it will be back in the 70s.

Wish I had a pic of you and your trusty Daffy Duck hair dryer at
work..... ;^)

Robert

Leon wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:051220091913388196%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> Snip
>
>>
>> This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing
>> (hint, it is).
>
> And climate change is not the issue. We are talking global warming. Whe
> have climate change seasonally.

No, the issue USED to be Global Warming. But since there hasn't been any of
that in the last twelve years, the factotums changed the name to "Climate
Change." It's hard to get funding for a "Save the Dinosaur" movement. But if
we change the name to "Help the Lizard"....

jo4hn wrote:

> To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
> is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in
historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not
trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to
back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... <g>

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

jo4hn wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but GISS had to redo their calculations:
>>>>
>>>> http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/08/08/climate-network-re-ranks-warmest-years/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anything official from GISS publishing corrections to their
>>> 2008 report?
>>>
>>
>> Yes:
>>
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
>>
>> As referenced from here:
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html
>>
> Let me rephrase Swing's question: Is there anything official from GISS
> publishing corrections to their 2008 report? Hopefully that translates
> the data numbers given into informational context? And that does not
> involve a right (or left) wing blog?
> criminy,
> jo4hn

If you look at the GISS temperature numbers, you'll find they exactly
agree with the informational content of the blog. I can't find anything
on the GISS site that acknowledges their booboo except the corrected
temperature table.

On Dec 5, 9:14=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Ain't this Global Warming A Bitch!?!
>
> I think I mentioned that to my son as we were scraping ice off his
> windshield, using his Daffy Duck Hair dryer, that he has had for 18 years=
,
> to melt the ice around the door. =A0It was frozen shut. =A0He has a final=
at
> school this morning and I was out there at 6:30 this morning getting the
> process started before he joined me.
>
> The bitch about global warming is that those leading the sheep into this =
way
> of thinking are simply doing it to get rich.

It's the American Way. That is not a slight against 'The Way', but
think about it. IF Global Warming is a problem, wouldn't you be glad
to spend a few billion to fix/solve that problem?
Problem---->Solution...somebody gets rich... the American Way.
Phony, made-up problem----->Solution...somebody gets rich...also the
American Way.
Look at the life insurance industry!
Selling a $ ?000.0 casket to a bereaved family? More of the same.

Capitalism at its finest. I'm all for it.
To have somebody die unnecessarily just so I can then have enough
money to put spinners on a Hummer.....not so much.

jo4hn wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but GISS had to redo their calculations:
>>>>
>>>> http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/08/08/climate-network-re-ranks-warmest-years/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anything official from GISS publishing corrections to their
>>> 2008 report?
>>>
>>
>> Yes:
>>
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
>>
>> As referenced from here:
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html
>>
> Let me rephrase Swing's question: Is there anything official from GISS
> publishing corrections to their 2008 report? Hopefully that translates
> the data numbers given into informational context? And that does not
> involve a right (or left) wing blog?
>

Here is the GISS ranking I was looking for which does not involve a
right or left wing blog:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 12/07/2009 09:42 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> I lurk in a lot of newsgroups but I've never seen so much downright
>>> ignorance re global warming as there is in this one.
>>> Hint - it is NOTHING to do with the weather in your neck of the
>>> woods. Have at it!
>>
>> Heh! If that's so, then why do climatologists use weather as a proxy
>> for climate change? They record temperature, precipitation, etc.,
>> and from that deduce "climate."
>
> Climate is basically the average weather over a long period of time,
> typically 30 years or so.
>
> You need to record the weather to determine the climate.

What was the "weather" in what was to become Berlin or London 2,000 years
ago?

The "trick" the CRU played was to use "proxy" data for about 2,000 years
(tree rings, ice cores, etc.), then switch over to "real" data in 1981.
Presto, a significant uptick. They had to do this because the proxy data
they were using 1981 onward did NOT show any warming. In fact, it showed
continued cooling.

The conundrum could be easily solved by assuming the 2,000 years of proxy
data was wrongly determined. That is, a tree ring of 0.25" really
represented 60° instead of 55°.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but GISS had to redo their calculations:
>>>
>>> http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/08/08/climate-network-re-ranks-warmest-years/
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there anything official from GISS publishing corrections to their
>> 2008 report?
>>
>
> Yes:
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
>
> As referenced from here:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html
>
Let me rephrase Swing's question: Is there anything official from GISS
publishing corrections to their 2008 report? Hopefully that translates
the data numbers given into informational context? And that does not
involve a right (or left) wing blog?
criminy,
jo4hn

dpb wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
> ...
>> hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended
>> the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric
>> concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG)
>> back to 420,000 years before present.
> ...
>
> Which all indicates that the previous temperature rises (greater by far
> than the recent) all _precede_ the CO2 levels thereby negating the cause
> of higher temperatures being CO2 but rather that it appears that the
> rising temperatures resulted in higher CO2 levels (probably by
> stimulating additional plant growth???)
>
> IOW, it refutes the hypothesis currently being posited as the causative
> factor.
>
> --
The cause and effect relationships are not known at this time. Data
supports neither possibility.

Robatoy wrote:

> Now, after we all moved to Texas...go to Google Earth and centre Texas
> in the middle of the globe....now zoom back. Rotate the Earth...keep
> an eye on texas.. we all live there now....

Trust me on this ... it looks that way already!! ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Tom Watson wrote:
> Ain't this Global Warming A Bitch!?!
>
>
>

We were warned:

"However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time,
when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they
find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past
three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather
aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." --
Time Magazine

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

On another group I predicted:
---
* School closings.
* Freeway closings.
* Runs on canned goods, candles, batteries, and strawberry pop-tarts.
* Widespread panic as residents try to flee by going south only to discover
the Gulf of Mexico. They will weep uncontrollably.
* Overflowing emergency rooms and church pews.
* Flight cancellations (there are NO snow plows at Houston airports).
* Confusion on the part of feral cats.
* A drop-off in crime as goblins conclude they're having a bad trip.
* A five or six-fold increase in auto collisions.
* Reporters will contribute to the mass unrest ("This just in: The Kroger
store on Left Elbow Ave. is OUT OF BOTTLED WATER. Residents advised to run
for their lives!").
* Children, bundled up in every bit of clothing they own, will scrape snow
from car hoods and construct six-inch high snowmen. They will call it good.
* There will be NO keg parties as there were during hurricane Yikes. Some
will swear off booze entirely (these heart-felt oaths have usually been
proven to be temporary).

Pray for us.
---
For a report on the devastation, visit www.chron.com, the website of the
Houston Chronicle. Note also the user-contributed pictures there of the rack
and ruin wroght by the wrathful gods. Also note the front-page instructions
on how to steer out of a skid.

It hasn't snowed this early in Houston since they started keeping records,
right after our Second War of Independence.

Leon wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote:
>>
>>> Global Warming is a myth.
>>
>> Just curious, what makes you say that?
>
>
> Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret
> what I am seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.
>
> I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for
> this period of time but there are other places that are getting
> colder. Take the South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing
> for years.

What parts are getting warmer? The average temperature has been steadily
declining since 1996. And even if it IS getting warmer, it's no where near
what it was during the Medieval Warm Period (a time of great prosperity).

"Sonny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:461bf85c-d38e-4139-9daa-766c7d186d2b@g25g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>I may as well jump into this discussion, also. I'm not knowledgeable
> with facts, so lets speculate some more. How will the world end?

Badly.

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Not really. If there is a problem it is the result of suddenly
> releasing a lot of carbon that was sequestered over millions of
> years. Trees are short term--burn them and plant new ones where the
> old ones were and the new ones store the same amount of carbon as the
> old ones released while being burned.
>
>
> How do you figure?

Thusly:

CO2 accounts for 0.0038% of the earth's atmosphere. If the total atmosphere
can be compared to a football field (57,000 sq ft), the amount of CO2 in the
air is roughly equivalent to the prostrate body of an official stabbed six
times by irate fans because of three consecutive bad calls and the increase
in CO2 is roughly the growing stain said official is leaving on the
Astroturf as he bleeds out (23 sq ft).

CO2 in the atmosphere is part of a giant feedback loop. Plants are capturing
it (principally ocean plants) and sequestering it naturally.

Swingman wrote:

> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
>> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
>> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
>> <sigh>
>
> As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
> project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land
> fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional
> construction projects.
>
> .... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the
> misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy,
> self congratulatory, and without a clue!
>

Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this. There are
two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say that there is a
material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you
can learn the way it works, and teleologists -- those who say that the
universe is an ideal place. From what I read:
"More or less, it exists so that we humans can live in it. And human
thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a
mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology
implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen."

<http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/>

The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter persuasion. They
don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked before -- it just wasn't
done correctly, they are going to do it correctly. If the idea of a "green"
economy feels good, by golly, it will be good. Ignore those niggling little
details like more waste or less available resourced -- by golly it FEELS
good!

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> You left out the frozen, dead, ugly palm trees.
>
> I went throught the Big Freeze of 1982 (1983?) in Houston. There's
> NOTHING more ugly than a dead palm tree.
>
> -Zz

Yeah that was a be-och, I was working in an unheated environment.

Then there was the freeze in December of 1989 IIRC. Did not last long but
the temp of "7" F was cold by most standards.

"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ain't this Global Warming A Bitch!?!
>>
>> I think I mentioned that to my son as we were scraping ice off his
>> windshield, using his Daffy Duck Hair dryer, that he has had for 18
>> years,
>
> A Daffy Duck hair dryer? I want one of those! 'cept that by the time I
> get the thing unraveled, plugged in, and fired up, what little hair I have
> left would already be dry... :-)
3

I wish I had thouft to take pictures. something to show his kids one day.
;~) IIRC he got it for his 4th Christmas.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 1:29 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
>> into and age of skepticism and suspicion.
>
> I couldn't agree more. Especially with the truth hiding in plain
> sight.
>
>
>> IOW, I've been right all along ... <g>
>
> Well...
>
> Karl... I wanted to stay out of this. But actually, blaming Canada
> earlier was just a smoke screen on the real truth.
>
> I didn't want to post the REAL truth, since (thinking of Jack
> Nicholson here) many couldn't handle the truth. Well, here it is.
> And it's been out there for many years, and NO ONE, no matter how they
> internet search and quote, can disprove it.
>
> In that vein, since >> I << believe it and it can't be googled away
> with foamy blather, doesn't that make it the truth according to the
> group definition?
>
> I didn't want to play this card as the "experts" are obviously not
> finished. But...
>
> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>
> I hope this clears things up. Now all of you can go back to being
> friends again.... or can you....

But Robert, Robert, it's true!!

I see them every day, even on TV. I tell Linda I can spot'em a mile
away. Their eyes are close together, on either side of big noses; and
you can see all their front teeth, with even the whisp of a smile. Sorta
like the ballon boys father, or Jerry Seinfeld!

I tell ... it's true!!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Follow the money. Gore and his ilk stand to "make" hundreds of
> millions, if not billions, at the hand of government interference in
> markets.
> This is now, and has always been, a movement about money and power,
> not a conservation activity.

But not all. People get involved in politics for one of three reasons:

* Pride - there are those who sincerely believe they are doing good for the
planet
* Power - there are those who just know that minding other people's business
is a Good Thing(tm)
* Profit - as you said

Often, a single person is motivated by more than one reason.

Leon wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 12/07/2009 11:15 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Really and truly none of the global warming/climate change malarkey came
>>> about until we started trying to clean up the environment and stop air
>>> pollution. For hundreds of years a lot of wood was always being burned
>>> for
>>> cooking and heating, no global warming problem then.
>> As long as the rate of burning doesn't exceed the rate of growth,
>> burning wood for energy is carbon neutral.
>
> That sounds lile a fuzzy feels good formula.
>
>
>> 200 years ago the population of the planet was under a billion people.
>> Now it's 6x that.
>
> But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.
>
>
>> From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased by
>> a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to population
>> increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has increased roughly 4x
>> over that period.
>
> So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.
>
Not to mention microwaves, fridges, stoves, televisions, computers
etc., that didn't exist back then.

Just think of all the hot air that usenet causes.
;-)

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:061220091414446238%
>> >
>> > This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing (hint,
>> > it is).
>>
>> And climate change is not the issue. We are talking global warming. Whe
>> have climate change seasonally.
>>
>
> That was my point. Global warming is not happening, and the leaked
> documents (not just the email) from the CRU demonstrate that the
> "scientists" screaming that the earth is warming KNOW that it's not
> happening.
>
> Some of these same "scientists" were screaming that we were going to
> enter an ice age, back in the 1970s.
>
> This is a classic "follow the money" scenario.


Sorry Dave, I misunderstood you comments. I apologize. Totally agree with
your last comment about the money.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
.
>
> No, the issue USED to be Global Warming. But since there hasn't been any
> of that in the last twelve years, the factotums changed the name to
> "Climate Change." It's hard to get funding for a "Save the Dinosaur"
> movement. But if we change the name to "Help the Lizard"....
>

Exactly. And What may I ask has all this fuzzy feel good conservation done
to fix the perceived problem? Noting.

Really and truly none of the global warming/climate change malarkey came
about until we started trying to clean up the environment and stop air
pollution. For hundreds of years a lot of wood was always being burned for
cooking and heating, no global warming problem then.

in 124721 20091206 055500 "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>news:051220091913388196%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>> In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Leon wrote:
>>> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>> > It's the American Way. That is not a slight against 'The Way', but
>>> > think about it. IF Global Warming is a problem, wouldn't you be glad
>>> > to spend a few billion to fix/solve that problem?
>>> >
>>> > Global Warming is a myth. Ultimately the government is going to tax
>>> > me to once again try to repair something that is not broken.
>>>
>>> If it _is_ a problem, "a few billion" isn't going to fix it anyway. The
>>> US
>>> share alone would be at a minimum about thirty trillion dollars if I
>>> remember the numbers I worked out a while back correctly, (and likely
>>> much
>>> more). Then there are the wars to pull the plug on all the third world
>>> emitters that refuse to clean up. And some of those third world emitters
>>> are nuclear-armed.
>>
>> There's all sort of spin being put on the leaked data from the CRU. My
>> reading is:
>>
>> -- The scientists involved do not have confidence in the data, and
>> resorted to software manipulation to make the data fit predictions.
>>
>> -- The scientists involved deliberately stonewalled publication of
>> dissenting scientific opinions, to the point of having editors of
>> science journals removed.
>>
>> -- At least one of the software engineers tasked with updating the
>> software used for modelling climate had no faith in the integrity of
>> the data he was using in the models.
>
>Which does not really matter, as the 'constants' in the model get tweeked to
>ensure the outcome matches the expectations.
>
>>
>> -- "The dog ate my data." so nobody can go back and re-run the models
>> in any event.
>>
>> This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing (hint,
>> it is).
>
>Then, now, and ever shall be, change without end. And all creatures great
>and small contribute. Cattle more than most.

I lurk in a lot of newsgroups but I've never seen so much downright ignorance
re global warming as there is in this one.
Hint - it is NOTHING to do with the weather in your neck of the woods.
Have at it!

"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> See what's happening to the glaciers, the coral reefs, bird migration.
> The signs are all around for those who will open their eyes and their
> minds.


Look at glaciers at the south pole, ever growing. There are natural climate
changes other wise there would be no seasons. Just because we only
recognize 4 seasons per year does not mean that there will be "slight"
deviations over periods of decades. The friggin sky is not falling.

jo4hn wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> jo4hn wrote:
>>>>
... snip
>>
>> Well, one case in point, if you feed a flat temperature reading into
>> one
>> of CRU's models, it returns the infamous "Hockey Stick" result. i.e., it
>> massages data in a way that appears to have hardcoded in the researcher's
>> bias.
>>
>> All of this bleating about peer reviews would be a lot more credible if
>> the peer review process had not been subverted. *That* is definitely
>> shown
>> in the released e-mails. When the only peers who review your work are
>> those who agree with your conclusions, and the only papers accepted for
>> peer review in journals are those that agree with AGW, and when journals
>> that dare publish peer reviewed papers that don't agree with AGW are
>> threatened
>> and coerced into stopping that behavior, one no longer has science. One
>> has
>> dogma and religion. In this case, the collars and cassocks have been
>> replaced with white labcoats. Still religion with orthodoxy being
>> strictly enforced.
>>
> OK. You are resorting to snottiness now. Good night.

Snottiness? Me? Nope. The warmists? Definitely. Read the frickin' e-
mails. They contain some of the most petty and base comments that
demonstrate more adherence to orthodoxy than devotion to science. They show
a clear and devoted grasp to a pet theory and the determination to make sure
that nothing which casts any aspersions on that theory will be granted a
hearing in a "peer-reviewed" journal. That's not science.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:051220091913388196%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
Snip

>
> This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing (hint,
> it is).

And climate change is not the issue. We are talking global warming. Whe
have climate change seasonally.

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snip

>> But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.
>
> Before we were burning trees, now we burn oil, coal, and gas.

With less polution. I have no polution control device on my fireplace and I
doubt way back when there were any such devices either. Ther is all kind of
polution control devices on oil, coal, gas, and gasoline burning machines.


>
>>> From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased by
>>> a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to population
>>> increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has increased roughly 4x
>>> over that period.
>>
>> So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.
>
> Cleaner in what sense? As the US switched from agrarian to modern it
> uses 4x as much energy per person. How is that cleaner overall?

what,,,,, 4 times more people using cleaner burning fuels than wood.....

Leon wrote:
> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> There ain't none so blind as those that don't want to see!
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
>
>
> And you know that seems to be the problem.
>
> What have you personally seen with your own eyes that has become a world
> problem in this situation.
>
> What have you read?
>
>
>
Take a look at climate.nasa.gov. Study it at some length with as little
prejudice as possible. Report back in a week. Do not cite wingnut
blogs as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers.
TIA,

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
>>> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
>>> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
>>> <sigh>
>> As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
>> project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land
>> fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional
>> construction projects.
>>
>> .... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the
>> misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy,
>> self congratulatory, and without a clue!
>>
>
> Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this. There are
> two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say that there is a
> material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you
> can learn the way it works, and teleologists -- those who say that the
> universe is an ideal place. From what I read:
> "More or less, it exists so that we humans can live in it. And human
> thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a
> mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology
> implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen."
>
> <http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/>
>
> The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter persuasion. They
> don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked before -- it just wasn't
> done correctly, they are going to do it correctly. If the idea of a "green"
> economy feels good, by golly, it will be good. Ignore those niggling little
> details like more waste or less available resourced -- by golly it FEELS
> good!
>
So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global warming",
that the problem will go away. And further that there never was a
problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow. Thank you for
clearing that up.

Larry Jaques wrote:

> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
> <sigh>

As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land
fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional
construction projects.

.... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the
misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy,
self congratulatory, and without a clue!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

in 124738 20091206 174713 Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bob Martin wrote:
>
>
>> However, to those maintaining that global warming is a myth, please read
>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
>> and come back with your informed rebuttals.
>> "It's all lies" and "it's a scam" is just not good enough.
>> BTW : almost everything that's been said about the CRU in the media is wrong.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm
>
>As long as you're throwing internet/media shit on the wall, the
>following report, and its burying because it did not fit in with the
>current political agenda, is neither ... and irrefutable evidence that
>you are being misguided:
>
>http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html
>
>This is the actual report, not media supposition, and what happened to
>it is undeniable fact, not the result of agenda driven media "spin".
>
>This entire issue is simply too rife with examples of same for it to be
>viewed as pure innocence personified, which you seem to be doing.
>
>Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, anyone, government or
>otherwise, advocating basing action on computer climate modeling done
>with even the suspicion of tainted data is being irresponsible ... GIGO
>is an irrefutable, _scientific_ fact, which can't be spun to suit any
>agenda.
>
>Nice try ...

See what's happening to the glaciers, the coral reefs, bird migration.
The signs are all around for those who will open their eyes and their minds.

On 12/08/2009 03:03 PM, CW wrote:

> Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next week
> right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can be
> predicted with accuracy.

I can't predict when I'm going to die, but the life insurance companies
can predict with pretty good accuracy how many people will die this year
across the whole country.

Chris

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret what I
>> am seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.
>>
>> I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for this
>> period of time but there are other places that are getting colder. Take
>> the South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing for years.
>>
>> I totally believe that those that believe in global warming "trend",
>> don't have enough data to make a proper assessment.
>
> Would you mind sharing your vetted source you used to reach your
> observations?

How about you show me scientific data from 800 years ago, and all years
since. Then let's see what the computer spits out.
"Normal" weather patterns run longer than what we have data for.

Global warming, climate changes, what ever todays click is was not a such a
concern before money was involved, or before scientists had to come up with
derived answers to justify the billions in research.

Chris Friesen wrote:

> From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased by
> a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to population
> increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has increased roughly 4x
> over that period.

Difficult to make accurate comparisons without factoring in a whole
bunch of data ... there were +/- 40 million buffalo here in the early
1800's. Grass eating ruminants, just these buffalo probably released
more harmful greenhouse gases than the 300 million humans (divide by two
because we all know ladies don't fart) here today. :)

Then again, with all the hot air, both "scientific" and otherwise,
inflating this debate ... !

Direct to you from <gasp> the United Nations, of all places:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

You steak eaters better grab one while you can, before the EPA, which
apparently no longer needs congressional approval to mandate "green"
laws, joined with other green nazi's, like PITA, to make your steak a
thing of the past.

Those dirty hippies, like the one who wrote "The Sheep Look Up", are
looking more prescient all the time ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Bob Martin wrote:


> However, to those maintaining that global warming is a myth, please read
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
> and come back with your informed rebuttals.
> "It's all lies" and "it's a scam" is just not good enough.
> BTW : almost everything that's been said about the CRU in the media is wrong.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm

As long as you're throwing internet/media shit on the wall, the
following report, and its burying because it did not fit in with the
current political agenda, is neither ... and irrefutable evidence that
you are being misguided:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

This is the actual report, not media supposition, and what happened to
it is undeniable fact, not the result of agenda driven media "spin".

This entire issue is simply too rife with examples of same for it to be
viewed as pure innocence personified, which you seem to be doing.

Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, anyone, government or
otherwise, advocating basing action on computer climate modeling done
with even the suspicion of tainted data is being irresponsible ... GIGO
is an irrefutable, _scientific_ fact, which can't be spun to suit any
agenda.

Nice try ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
> Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next
> week right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can
> be predicted with accuracy.


Pretty much it in a nut shell CW!

HeyBub wrote:
>
snip

> * Confusion on the part of feral cats.

That's free range cats to us gourmets.

snip
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

The young know the rules, the old know
the exceptions.

in 124796 20091207 125703 "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> See what's happening to the glaciers, the coral reefs, bird migration.
>> The signs are all around for those who will open their eyes and their
>> minds.
>
>
>Look at glaciers at the south pole, ever growing. There are natural climate
>changes other wise there would be no seasons. Just because we only
>recognize 4 seasons per year does not mean that there will be "slight"
>deviations over periods of decades. The friggin sky is not falling.

There ain't none so blind as those that don't want to see!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
>>> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
>>> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
>>> <sigh>
>> As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
>> project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land
>> fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional
>> construction projects.
>>
>> .... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the
>> misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy,
>> self congratulatory, and without a clue!
>>
>
> Follow the money. Gore and his ilk stand to "make" hundreds of millions,
> if not billions, at the hand of government interference in markets.
> This is now, and has always been, a movement about money and power,
> not a conservation activity.
>

Amen!

Matt (mostly lurking)

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity and
> using models that have not been validated to support their politicking.
> There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our society--trusting anyone who
> claims to be a "scientist" without question. Most sciences are in their
> infancy--the only ones with any real maturity are physics and chemistry,
> with biology getting there. Climatology is very immature and basing
> social
> policy on its models is about as wise as basing social policy on the
> ravings
> of alchemists or astrologers.
>

Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next week
right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can be
predicted with accuracy.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

It's the American Way. That is not a slight against 'The Way', but
think about it. IF Global Warming is a problem, wouldn't you be glad
to spend a few billion to fix/solve that problem?

Global Warming is a myth. Ultimately the government is going to tax me to
once again try to repair something that is not broken.

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Mark & Juanita wrote:
: > Swingman wrote:
: >
: >> Larry Jaques wrote:
: >>
: >>> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but
I no
: >>> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the
movement
: >>> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies
now.
: >>> <sigh>
: >> As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
: >> project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the
land
: >> fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual
traditional
: >> construction projects.
: >>
: >> .... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of
the
: >> misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm,
fuzzy,
: >> self congratulatory, and without a clue!
: >>
: >
: > Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this.
There are
: > two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say that there
is a
: > material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you
study it you
: > can learn the way it works, and teleologists -- those who say that
the
: > universe is an ideal place. From what I read:
: > "More or less, it exists so that we humans can live in it. And
human
: > thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that
if a
: > mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true.
Teleology
: > implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen."
: >
: >
<http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/>
: >
: > The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter
persuasion. They
: > don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked before -- it just
wasn't
: > done correctly, they are going to do it correctly. If the idea of a
"green"
: > economy feels good, by golly, it will be good. Ignore those
niggling little
: > details like more waste or less available resourced -- by golly it
FEELS
: > good!
: >
: So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
: reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global
warming",
: that the problem will go away. And further that there never was a
: problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow. Thank you for
: clearing that up.

I thought these scientists (and Big Al, of course) stand to make
brazillions and brazillions of dollars. Why else would you want to
dream up and perpetuate such a huge hoax?

Dave in Houston

J. Clarke wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> jo4hn wrote:
>>>
>>>> To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information
>>>> that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
>>> Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
>>> sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to
>>> suspicion.
>>>
>>> All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error
>>> inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at
>>> the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is
>>> ample evidence to back up that skepticism.
>>>
>>> What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
>>> into and age of skepticism and suspicion.
>>>
>>> IOW, I've been right all along ... <g>
>>>
>> Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
>> from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
>> calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
>> notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.
>
> Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise in a
> long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long term trend is
> the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models that
> purport to project that cycle are working on 40 years of data. See the
> problem?
>
Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that
operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea cores,
and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena go back
hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended the
historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG)
back to 420,000 years before present.

This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so.
Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh
water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline
circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in
these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science popularity
in certain political arenas.

"Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>
> I've been doing weather prediction for 35 or 40 years.
> Longer than most local weather people. I trained under, by
> watching and listening, Howard Taft out of Ft. Worth and
> he was IIRC a U.S. Reserve "General" weather officer. He
> gave insight as to why and how. He was a WW vet and I
> believe long in passing.
>
> Martin
>

Not going to be sucked into this pissing contest but...
It was actually Harold Taft.

Larry

Bob Martin wrote:
>
> I lurk in a lot of newsgroups but I've never seen so much downright
> ignorance re global warming as there is in this one.
> Hint - it is NOTHING to do with the weather in your neck of the woods.
> Have at it!

Heh! If that's so, then why do climatologists use weather as a proxy for
climate change? They record temperature, precipitation, etc., and from that
deduce "climate." True, they use other proxies that can't be called
"weather" (i.e., sunspot activity), but to say that "weather does not
influence (the perception of) climate" seems wrong.

Larry Jaques wrote:

> Hayseuss Crisco, is that one inch rebar? Huh, a concrete foundation
> supported off the ground, on piers?!? Whut up wi dat?

Clay soil, which is capable of heaving up to 24" in some parts of this
area. Engineered design spec, based on soil test, called for minimum 12"
void space under grade beams.

I routinely build what is known as a "structural slab, with void space"
foundation in this area (Houston, 150 mile SE of where the pictured site
was), we have a similar clastic clay herem and I usually use cardboard
cartons to establish the void space ... can't do that with a 24" x 24"
grade beam! :)

> You meant "urea/formaldehyde-free" didn't you?

Left that all important word out during my brain fart when trying to
remember how to spiel "formaldehyde". :)

> I've seen bamboo ply
> for cabinets as low as $94/sheet. I haven't seen it up close, though.
> But if the client wants it, just have them adjust their budget up for
> it. It's only a grand more for a really beautiful kitchen.
>
>
>> Oddly enough, much of Home Depot's plywood (from Columbia Forest
>> Products) is made with urea formaldehyde free glue.
>
> OK.
>
>
>> Lowe's has "Fresh Aire", no VOC, paint which we used on the interior of
>> this house ...I was quite happy with the results and the price wasn't
>> all that out of line with other premium indoor paints.
>
> They've sure shot up recently, haven't they? Wow!
>
>
>> I tried to get other low or no VOC products/stains from them that they
>> advertise in other locales and was informed that they were not allowed
>> to ship these across state lines??
>>
>> Still trying to figure that one out ....
>
> Maybe they're taking Clintoon's stance, depending on what the meaning
> of VOC is...
>
> So, what brands are not shippable, please? I want to look into this
> deeper.

Believe it or not, Min-Wax makes a 250 VOC compliant complement to their
normal stains. The client was dead set on Cherry235 in her color scheme,
but the 250 VOC compliant product is not for sale here, and Min-Wax
would NOT ship it to Texas ... go figure?

I called repeatedly, and systematically went up the chain of command, to
no avail.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I do a lot of it myself and miss some events in longer terms.
Over two or three days they and I are rather close. A lot of times
I win. I don't keep score as it is a non-perfect science and way to
complex for a computer to simply determine.

As one example - I had two front lines pass over us today. Then they
reversed and split further apart the second one passed over us twice again.

I trust and hope both are now done with the retrograde plays.

I've been doing weather prediction for 35 or 40 years. Longer than most
local weather people. I trained under, by watching and listening, Howard
Taft out of Ft. Worth and he was IIRC a U.S. Reserve "General" weather
officer. He gave insight as to why and how. He was a WW vet and I believe
long in passing.

Martin

CW wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity and
>> using models that have not been validated to support their politicking.
>> There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our society--trusting anyone
>> who
>> claims to be a "scientist" without question. Most sciences are in their
>> infancy--the only ones with any real maturity are physics and chemistry,
>> with biology getting there. Climatology is very immature and basing
>> social
>> policy on its models is about as wise as basing social policy on the
>> ravings
>> of alchemists or astrologers.
>>
>
> Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next
> week right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale
> can be predicted with accuracy.

"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Might I suggest you get your facts from NASA rather than from Fox News or
> your
> childrens' comics?
> The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years.
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

And the coldest years on record have been during recent times also.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Global Warming is a myth.
>
> Just curious, what makes you say that?


Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret what I am
seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.

I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for this
period of time but there are other places that are getting colder. Take the
South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing for years.

I totally believe that those that believe in global warming "trend", don't
have enough data to make a proper assessment.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

If we take the earth's population at 7 billion, and moved them all
toTexas,

Wouldn't that put the planet out of balance and throw it out of it's
solar orbit? I mean, I can see it wobbling like the washing machine
when the big blanket bunches up on one side of the tub and then hurtling
out into deep space.

Dave in Houston

On 12/07/2009 12:18 PM, Leon wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> As long as the rate of burning doesn't exceed the rate of growth,
>> burning wood for energy is carbon neutral.
>
> That sounds lile a fuzzy feels good formula.

Huh? You grow a tree then burn it...no net carbon release. How is that
fuzzy or "feels good"?

>> 200 years ago the population of the planet was under a billion people.
>> Now it's 6x that.
>
> But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.

Before we were burning trees, now we burn oil, coal, and gas.

>> From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased by
>> a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to population
>> increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has increased roughly 4x
>> over that period.
>
> So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.

Cleaner in what sense? As the US switched from agrarian to modern it
uses 4x as much energy per person. How is that cleaner overall?

Chris

Swingman wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>
>> To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
>> is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
>
> Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
> sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.
>
> All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in
> historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not
> trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to
> back up that skepticism.
>
> What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
> into and age of skepticism and suspicion.
>
> IOW, I've been right all along ... <g>
>
Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> There ain't none so blind as those that don't want to see!
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm


And you know that seems to be the problem.

What have you personally seen with your own eyes that has become a world
problem in this situation.

What have you read?

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:58:34 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
>> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
>> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
>> <sigh>
>
>As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
>project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land
>fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional
>construction projects.

Please expand on that if you will, Swingy. What's the nature of the
new waste? I've found that most of the new "green" products (the few
which are available around here) are about 50% higher in cost than
standard mat'ls, despite the trade mags showing only a 10% increase.
And look what it's done to the cost of finishes. Waterlox has doubled
in price since I last bought it, and their VOC-free finishes are
higher than that: $105 per gallon now!


>.... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the
>misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy,
>self congratulatory, and without a clue!

Oh, you're talking about Democrats, aren't you? ;) I'm all for the
reduction of our human footprint, but Crikey, not at the cost of
lives. A nasty side-effect of the fracking Green movement is that it
retasks money which had previously been available for poverty. The
movement is _killing_people_!

Both Bjorn Lomborg and Peter Huber cover some of those details in
their books.

It's all that beatch Rachel Carson's fault. Come to think of it, she
was the first large-scale clash of the true scientists with the
emotional wreck "scientists". She may have pushed the very first Bad
Science into mainstream public view, huh?

--
For me, pragmatism is not enough. Nor is that fashionable word "consensus."

To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs,
principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one
believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very
issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement
on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under
the banner "I stand for consensus"?
--Margaret Thatcher (in a 1981 speech)

LJ sez: It's a good thing we have concensus on the case of Anthropogenic
Global Warming (kumbaya), isn't it?

On Dec 7, 12:57=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> > "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> There ain't none so blind as those that don't want to see!
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
>
> > And you know that seems to be the problem.
>
> > What have you personally seen with your own eyes that has become a worl=
d
> > problem in this situation.
>
> > What have you read?
>
> Take a look at climate.nasa.gov. =A0Study it at some length with as littl=
e
> prejudice as possible. =A0Report back in a week. =A0Do not cite wingnut
> blogs as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 TIA,

FINE then! *s*

Planet Earth has shown its resilience in the past. It came back after
a few solid comet/asteroid hits.
Many people seem to have little understanding of just how big this
place really is.
If we take the earth's population at 7 billion, and moved them all to
Texas, everybody would have over 1000 sq ft of space. IOW, a family of
4, would have 4000+ sq ft of space.
(Now, there will be some Einsteins around who will argue that we need
to deduct roads and farmland for food...I know, I know...that's not
the argument I'm making..I KNOW that example could not be self-
sufficient...so go away already...)

The point I'm making, is that the current population of the earth is
like a gnat on an elephant's ass.

Good luck in controlling the atmosphere. (Quote: some data is
misleading because the effect of that year's El-fucking-Ninja.)

What I am looking for, is a table that allows me to make the
conversion from an elephant fart to a starting Trabant.

Warmer =3D melting ice =3D more rain =3D more fresh water =3D more trees =
=3D
less CO2. =B1 some bullshit.

Now, after we all moved to Texas...go to Google Earth and centre Texas
in the middle of the globe....now zoom back. Rotate the Earth...keep
an eye on texas.. we all live there now....

Sonny wrote:
> On Dec 4, 9:21�pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sonny wrote:
>>> And those Houston folks sent it east, to us here in south LA. Records
>>> show it has never snowed here on Dec 4th, until this evening. �Last
>>> year it snowed on Dec 11th. �The gumbo was perfect, both times.
>> Whereabouts, cher?
>>
>> I just finished the last bowl I made for Thanksgiving last night ... to
>> hell with turkey!
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> Lafayette.

Broke ice along the banks of Bayou Teche duck hunting as a kid, but I
don't ever recall seeing snow on the ground.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Sonny wrote:
> And those Houston folks sent it east, to us here in south LA. Records
> show it has never snowed here on Dec 4th, until this evening. Last
> year it snowed on Dec 11th. The gumbo was perfect, both times.

Whereabouts, cher?

I just finished the last bowl I made for Thanksgiving last night ... to
hell with turkey!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 7, 1:29=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

> What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
> into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

I couldn't agree more. Especially with the truth hiding in plain
sight.


> IOW, I've been right all along ... <g>

Well...

Karl... I wanted to stay out of this. But actually, blaming Canada
earlier was just a smoke screen on the real truth.

I didn't want to post the REAL truth, since (thinking of Jack
Nicholson here) many couldn't handle the truth. Well, here it is.
And it's been out there for many years, and NO ONE, no matter how they
internet search and quote, can disprove it.

In that vein, since >> I << believe it and it can't be googled away
with foamy blather, doesn't that make it the truth according to the
group definition?

I didn't want to play this card as the "experts" are obviously not
finished. But...

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

I hope this clears things up. Now all of you can go back to being
friends again.... or can you....

Robert

Swingman wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
>> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
>> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
>> <sigh>
>
> As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
> project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land
> fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional
> construction projects.
>
> .... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the
> misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy,
> self congratulatory, and without a clue!
>

Follow the money. Gore and his ilk stand to "make" hundreds of millions,
if not billions, at the hand of government interference in markets.
This is now, and has always been, a movement about money and power,
not a conservation activity.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:59:33 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>
>"Leon" wrote:
>
>> Global Warming is a myth.
>
>Just curious, what makes you say that?

Let's put it this way: Anthropogenic Global Warming(kumbaya), as
warned about by the alarmists, is a myth. Most of us realize that the
Earth is coming out of an ice age and has been slowly warming, but not
at anywhere _near_ the rate the alarmists spew.

Lew, see if your local library has a copy of Peter Huber's _Hard
Green_. It will likely give you a fresh perspective on what we humans
deem important and how the "Green" movement is affecting us, both
positively and negatively. It's an important book and I hope you do
read it.

I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
<sigh>

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Leon wrote:
: > "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: >> On 12/07/2009 11:15 AM, Leon wrote:
: >>
: >>> Really and truly none of the global warming/climate change
malarkey
: >>> came about until we started trying to clean up the environment and
: >>> stop air pollution. For hundreds of years a lot of wood was
: >>> always being burned for
: >>> cooking and heating, no global warming problem then.
: >>
: >> As long as the rate of burning doesn't exceed the rate of growth,
: >> burning wood for energy is carbon neutral.
: >
: > That sounds lile a fuzzy feels good formula.
:
: Not really. If there is a problem it is the result of suddenly
releasing a
: lot of carbon that was sequestered over millions of years. Trees are
short
: term--burn them and plant new ones where the old ones were and the new
ones
: store the same amount of carbon as the old ones released while being
burned.
:
: >> 200 years ago the population of the planet was under a billion
: >> people. Now it's 6x that.
: >
: > But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.
: >
: >
: >>
: >> From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA
increased
: >> by a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to
: >> population increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has
: >> increased roughly 4x over that period.
: >
: > So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.
:
: How do you figure?

Do you really want him to answer that?

Dave in Houston
:

On 12/07/2009 11:15 AM, Leon wrote:

> Really and truly none of the global warming/climate change malarkey came
> about until we started trying to clean up the environment and stop air
> pollution. For hundreds of years a lot of wood was always being burned for
> cooking and heating, no global warming problem then.

As long as the rate of burning doesn't exceed the rate of growth,
burning wood for energy is carbon neutral.

200 years ago the population of the planet was under a billion people.
Now it's 6x that.

From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased by
a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to population
increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has increased roughly 4x
over that period.

Chris

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 08:00:00 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>It's the American Way.

Aw fuck this. Why don't we just buy Canuckistan and keep it as a cold
storage pantry until the global warming thing kicks in. Once it's
actually habitable we might be able to make a couple of euros on it.


Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/