"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I
don't think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"


I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.

http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2002/0303.htm
http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2004/0204.htm
I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.


He wasn't taking to you, netkkkop.


Bertie

Recently, Gig601XLBuilder posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

The same cannot be said about an ecosystem that will no longer
support human life.



Please cite one legit source that says the current Global warming
trend is going to bring about an ecosystem that will no longer
support human life.

You can easily find such sources if you're genuinely interested and not
simply wishing to dismiss all who disagree with you as illigitimate. As a
starting point, you may wish to look through the last couple of years'
Scientific American as an easily consumable digest of the issues at hand
and that isn't radical in its commentary.

If humans are causing GW then with the exception of us doing something
that causes a VERY rapid and overwhelmingly great change (like popping
off several 1000 nukes) there isn't anything we can do to cause that
sort of change because long before enough had been done to kill
everyone enough would be done to kill enough of us to stop the
human caused GW.

I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

Neil

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"

I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.

http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2002/0303.htm
http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2004/0204.htm
I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.


You didn't contact the library Rob Sherman did and he still hasn't
posted the archived items even though he posted his the 2 year wait 4
years ago.

I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1sQgj.26972$Ux2.4630
@attbi_s22:

I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.

And he's back.

Bertie

"John Mazor" wrote:
One thing that has been well established about the cycles
is: "It was now clear that not only the most obvious feedback, but
also the most momentous one, was the connection between global
temperature and greenhouse gas levels. Relatively straightforward
analysis of the data showed that a doubled level of CO2 had always
gone along with a rise of a few degrees in global temperature. It was
a striking verification, with entirely independent methods and data,
of what computer models had been predicting for the planet's
greenhouse future." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm at
the very end.

So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the
greenhouse gas CO2. From one of the websites you so blithely blew
off:

"The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have
increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm)
to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a 34%
increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the
highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the
burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in
a power plant generating electricity."

First, I've done some of my own all-too-brief reading of past studies
and did scan the references you gave.

Secondly, I've known for a couple years of at least two groups that
found that over tectonic time scales (i.e. on the order of hundreds of
millions of years) atmospheric CO2 did _not_ appear to covary with
climatic temperatures. They state:

"The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the
geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales." [1]

"Research on systems ranging in age from 440 million years to the
present suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels have been as much as 16 to
18 times higher at different times in the ancient past than they are
today. However, surface temperatures of ancient, low altitude, tropical
sites appear to have varied only from about 23 degrees C to 32 degrees
C. Interestingly, these temperatures do not seem to covary directly with
ancient atmospheric CO2 pressures."[2]

[1] http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/7/4167
(or: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=123620 )

[2] http://www.geology.smu.edu/~vineyard/yapp.html

Are you so confident that all the
modern recorded changes are due solely to ice-age warming that you're
willing to dismiss it all as "fraud" the way Barrow did? (I think
not, but you did chime in on his post where he said that.)

I am confident of nothing - I'm just going with what seems most probable
given my limited knowledge of the research and underlying physics. I'm
_inclined_ to believe CO2 is a factor in present climate change in spite
of the research quoted above. I just don't think you should be so
confident either.

I don't agree with Barrow's claim that it is all a fraud. Fraud happens
in science, but if someone has a specific claim, it is up to them to
make their case. Since it is Barrow's claim and not mine, it is up to
him to make his case.

There is also something important missing from that graph - can you
guess what it is?

Aside from full labeling of the axis and the nature of the graph, the
absolute values of the temperatures can only be guessed at - but
again, the wiki entry gives a comparison of those in the text, along
with the widely accepted conclusion that human activity probably is
contributing to, or possibly is totally causing, the temperature rise.

What is missing is the error bars. The graph purports to show "Global
Temperature Anomaly" but since it relies on a finite (and
time-and-space-varying) set of observation points, it should be showing
the error range. After all, a single observation is typically
representative of a large area - it should not be taken as _the_
average. Furthermore one has to include calibration errors.

P.S. After writing the above I went back to the wikipedia entry and
following the links to the original graphs - which fortunately include
the error bars I would expect (so even Wikipedia managed to include a
questionable graph - yet _another_ reason to avoid secondary sources):

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3...Bsh/index.html

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:24:23 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"

I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.

http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2002/0303.htm
http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2004/0204.htm
I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.


You didn't contact the library Rob Sherman did

That is correct.

and he still hasn't posted the archived items even though he posted
his the 2 year wait 4 years ago.

Perhaps you should file a FOIA request to satisfy your curiosity, or
do you expect someone else to do all your research for you?

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

"John Mazor" wrote:
One thing that has been well established about the cycles
is: "It was now clear that not only the most obvious feedback, but
also the most momentous one, was the connection between global
temperature and greenhouse gas levels. Relatively straightforward
analysis of the data showed that a doubled level of CO2 had always
gone along with a rise of a few degrees in global temperature. It was
a striking verification, with entirely independent methods and data,
of what computer models had been predicting for the planet's
greenhouse future." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm at
the very end.

So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the
greenhouse gas CO2. From one of the websites you so blithely blew
off:

"The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have
increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm)
to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a 34%
increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the
highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the
burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in
a power plant generating electricity."

First, I've done some of my own all-too-brief reading of past studies
and did scan the references you gave.

Secondly, I've known for a couple years of at least two groups that
found that over tectonic time scales (i.e. on the order of hundreds of
millions of years) atmospheric CO2 did _not_ appear to covary with
climatic temperatures. They state:

"The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with
the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."
[1]

"Research on systems ranging in age from 440 million years to the
present suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels have been as much as 16
to 18 times higher at different times in the ancient past than they
are today. However, surface temperatures of ancient, low altitude,
tropical sites appear to have varied only from about 23 degrees C to
32 degrees C. Interestingly, these temperatures do not seem to covary
directly with ancient atmospheric CO2 pressures."[2]

[1] http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/7/4167
(or: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=123620
)

[2] http://www.geology.smu.edu/~vineyard/yapp.html

Are you so confident that all the
modern recorded changes are due solely to ice-age warming that you're
willing to dismiss it all as "fraud" the way Barrow did? (I think
not, but you did chime in on his post where he said that.)

I am confident of nothing - I'm just going with what seems most
probable given my limited knowledge of the research and underlying
physics. I'm _inclined_ to believe CO2 is a factor in present climate
change in spite of the research quoted above. I just don't think you
should be so confident either.

I don't agree with Barrow's claim that it is all a fraud. Fraud
happens in science, but if someone has a specific claim, it is up to
them to make their case. Since it is Barrow's claim and not mine, it
is up to him to make his case.

There is also something important missing from that graph - can you
guess what it is?

Aside from full labeling of the axis and the nature of the graph, the
absolute values of the temperatures can only be guessed at - but
again, the wiki entry gives a comparison of those in the text, along
with the widely accepted conclusion that human activity probably is
contributing to, or possibly is totally causing, the temperature
rise.

What is missing is the error bars. The graph purports to show "Global
Temperature Anomaly" but since it relies on a finite (and
time-and-space-varying) set of observation points, it should be
showing the error range. After all, a single observation is typically
representative of a large area - it should not be taken as _the_
average. Furthermore one has to include calibration errors.

P.S. After writing the above I went back to the wikipedia entry and
following the links to the original graphs - which fortunately include
the error bars I would expect (so even Wikipedia managed to include a
questionable graph - yet _another_ reason to avoid secondary sources):

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3...h%2Bsh/index.h
tml


After a discussion with someone who claimed it was all bunkum a few months
ago, I went to the usenet GW group. A mistake except I ran into someone i
knew there who helped me wade through the literally hundreds of k00ks
posting there to get some good info for both sides of the argument. Keeping
in mind that I was trying to shore up my postion, but at the same time was
lookin gfor cogent arguments agin, i nearly went mad trying to make sense
of it all.
Anyhow, the info that I came up with in the end, was this.
The SUV drivers can tear it apart, use it for canary droppings or do what
you like. you won't be convinced of anything anyway, but it does have the
best info that several days worth of research on my behalf could produce.

Wanna argue? Write a leter to the NY times or these guys.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...turated-gassy-
argument/


This article adressed just about every argument I saw that was worthy of
the title ( I ignored crap like "well, you'd a thunk peeple'd be happy
about longer summers" and "Cows make more greenhouse gas than cars")


Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:24:23 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I
don't think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"

I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.

http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2002/0303.htm
http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2004/0204.htm
I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.


You didn't contact the library Rob Sherman did

That is correct.

and he still hasn't posted the archived items even though he posted
his the 2 year wait 4 years ago.

Perhaps you should file a FOIA request to satisfy your curiosity, or
do you expect someone else to do all your research for you?


He didn;'t ask you Fjukkwit


You want to ignore me then you ignore the conversations I'm having,
netkkkop.


Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:24:23 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote in
:

I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"

I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.
http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2002/0303.htm
http://www.robsherman.com/informatio.../2004/0204.htm
I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.

You didn't contact the library Rob Sherman did

That is correct.

and he still hasn't posted the archived items even though he posted
his the 2 year wait 4 years ago.

Perhaps you should file a FOIA request to satisfy your curiosity, or
do you expect someone else to do all your research for you?




No I expect people who make statements to be able to back them up with
something other than some nut job's website.