Al Gore's Private Jet

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:05:24 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Don Tabor" wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
available by following the links from this page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
motivate the public to act.

Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.


Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source
code
is available to anyone?

When person in a position of public trust asserts that it is
necessary, or even acceptable, to deceive the public in order to lead
opinion in a direction not supported by fact, everything he touches or
says is tainted.

The source code being available might be of some use to Tony Cox, as
an example, as he is qualified to evaluate it independently, were he
of the need to devote the time to do so. But it is meaningless to me,
just as the Source code to VISTA would be were it available.

In any case, just being associated with Hansen invalidates it in my
opinion. That is not ad hominem, because he has advocated lying on
this topic to achieve his ends.

Don
Hansen was not the one who asserted that lying was proper; that was Algore.

What Hansen DID assert was the the media was suppressing the GW hysterics
and promoting the GW skeptics.

The man is definitely unbalanced.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Don Tabor" wrote:

By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
available by following the links from this page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

This is the same Hansen who has publicly asserted that it is necessary
to strike a balance between the truth and alarmism in order to
motivate the public to act.

Hansen's credibility is on a par with Nixon's in 1976.


Ad hominem again. What's that got to do with the fact that the source
code
is available to anyone?

When person in a position of public trust asserts that it is
necessary, or even acceptable, to deceive the public in order to lead
opinion in a direction not supported by fact, everything he touches or
says is tainted.

The source code being available might be of some use to Tony Cox, as
an example, as he is qualified to evaluate it independently, were he
of the need to devote the time to do so. But it is meaningless to me,
just as the Source code to VISTA would be were it available.

In any case, just being associated with Hansen invalidates it in my
opinion. That is not ad hominem, because he has advocated lying on
this topic to achieve his ends.

Source code can can be evaluated objectively for validity. In that sense
it cannot be "tainted" by association.

If you challenge Hansen's testimony on an issue because his integrity has
been shown to be questionable in the past, that is valid. A good example
would be the producer of TGGWS Martin Durkin's claim that he did not
deceive the scientist who complained about being quoted out of context.

Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

Since Durkin has been caught doing just that before, causing Ch. 4 to
have to make a humiliating public apology,

Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

we might reasonably doubt his veracity this time. However, Hansen's
honesty has nothing to do with the scientific worth of his source code, so
attacking *this piece* of his work on those grounds is an ad hominem.

Got it now?

Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jim Logajan" wrote:


By the way, if you are believe that global warming is being used as a
pretext by certain political groups to advance their agendas, I too share
that belief. But I think it is unwise and eventually counterproductive to
dismiss objective science in favor of political rhetoric.

Bingo.

Right-wingers have been at war for so long with Left Wing environmental
extremists, they commit the logical error of presuming that anything
Lefties agree with must be false. This had led many of them to attack
science when the real enemy is bad policy.

You two pukes are unreal. Right up the post-modernist alley.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...

So, please explain how one can tell the difference between coal and
oil and volcanic CO2?

Coal is solid.
Oil is liquid.
Volcanic CO2 is a gas.

(Sorry, that was too easy)

(In the absense of a smiley) Evidently not - he's talking about the SOURCE
of the CO2.

"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
You mean you really didn't detect the least little bit of sarcasm/cynicism
in my post?


ICYDK, Larry has "issues".

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:30:43 -0400, "LWG"
wrote in :

This country has adopted "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need."

Are you sure about that?

\ Perhaps you're thinking of another country.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jim Logajan" wrote:


By the way, if you are believe that global warming is being used as a
pretext by certain political groups to advance their agendas, I too share
that belief. But I think it is unwise and eventually counterproductive to
dismiss objective science in favor of political rhetoric.

Bingo.

Right-wingers have been at war for so long with Left Wing environmental
extremists, they commit the logical error of presuming that anything
Lefties agree with must be false. This had led many of them to attack
science when the real enemy is bad policy.

Considering that, from about the 60's on, every time the left raised a
hysterical whelp, they've been wrong. That doens't even go back 200 some
years to Bishop Malthus, perhaps the father of the environmentalist
"mind"-set.

Shall we talk about Paul Erlich, and a few others, perhaps?

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote:


"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230
million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every
year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and
submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human
activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas
flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)
[ ( Marland, et al., 1998)


Gee...where did it all go?

The natural CO2? Where it's always gone. Natural CO2 emissions--including
volcanic sources--are kept in rough balance by the carbon cycle and plant
growth. If they weren't, we would all have suffocated long ago.

Yeah, but 22 billion tonnes over what nature produces?

Are you referring to anthropogenic CO2? Umm.., yes Matt, that's what the
USGS says. Do you have a refutation?

The human generated CO2? A lot of it is still up there, less than we have
emitted because natural systems--e.g. stimulated plant growth--have
buffered some of the excess.

In the last century or so, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been
increasing, leading global temperature rise instead of trailing it as it
has in natural cycles for hundreds of thousands of years.

Why did 60 % of global warming since 1850 occur before 1940, when 80 % of
the human-emitted carbon dioxide occurred after 1940? (1)

Why are you changing the subject? This is about that cut-and-paste you are
so fond of posting, remember?

"Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice,
called ice cores indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was
278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years
between 1000 and 1800 A.D."

And during previous geological epochs, it ranged as high as several
_thousand_ PPM. (Nice cherry picking data - so typical.

"Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378
ppm at the end of 2004...." (NOAA 2005-035)

Gee...what new large source of CO2 emissions has appeared lately?

Gonna answer this one?

- The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than
CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2
emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional
volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)"


It appears to me that the professor *has* confused carbon with CO2, and
his argument collapses, no?

Check a couple other sources.

I already have. It's your turn to show some backup.

Well...?

Are you going to answer Logajan's challenges to the professor's letter?

I've KF'ed him longgg ago.

How convenient. Was he making you uncomfortable? Why don't you just kf me,
too?

Are you going to answer Tabor's?

Tabor's what? Tabor appears to have disappeared after I asked him to
challenge the Bush Adm. story.

How about my question (1).

Nice try. Quit dodging and defend your post, or retract it.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:28:41 -0400, "LWG"
wrote in :

You mean you really didn't detect the least little bit of sarcasm/cynicism
in my post?

Personally, I prefer not to make uninformed inferences without benefit
of supporting information. It's presumptuous.

Apparently you don't hold the same opinion.

How was I to be sure you didn't believed what you wrote, or were being
facetious without benefit of hearing your inflections nor seeing your
body language, nor the convention of your providing a :-) to denote
sarcasm?

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

If you challenge Hansen's testimony on an issue because his integrity has
been shown to be questionable in the past, that is valid. A good example
would be the producer of TGGWS Martin Durkin's claim that he did not
deceive the scientist who complained about being quoted out of context.

Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

Yes. Have you checked Durkin's credibility record?

Since Durkin has been caught doing just that before, causing Ch. 4 to
have to make a humiliating public apology,

Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

Yes. Have you checked Durkin's credibility record?

we might reasonably doubt his veracity this time. However, Hansen's
honesty has nothing to do with the scientific worth of his source code, so
attacking *this piece* of his work on those grounds is an ad hominem.

Got it now?

Did you read Durkin's rebuttal?

Yes. It contains nothing to show that Wunsch is a liar besides Durkin's
assertion. This goes directly to Durkin's credibility, which you can check
for yourself.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

What a load of BS!
Mankind has NOTHING to do with global warming, believe it or not!
global warming is real, but its NOT manmade, its a natural cycle which
happens to be on the upswing. I suggest you find and read the book
"Unstoppable Global Warming: every 1500 years". This book details
scientific research that shows global warming actually cyclic, and
points out the flaws in the various "scientific reports" that says
global warming is manmade and will cause drastic changes.

In fact, the more CO2, the better for nature!

wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:38 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
The real issue though isn't the size of the house, it is the hypocrisy
that Gore represents and that Bush does not. Gore is the one crying
wolf and telling us how we have to change our lifestyle in order to
"save the world" all while doing completely the opposite personally. I
haven't heard Bush making such claims.

Well Matt, you're quite incorrect. Please get yourself informed.

Gore isn't telling you to go live in a cave.

He's telling you that all of us need to take responsibility for the
amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. That's all. It's
just that simple. If you want New York (or Galveston, or Miami, or
Shanghai or...) to be above water a hundred years from now, you need
to reduce the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases)
that you pump into the atmosphere by way of your existence.

If you want to be a pineapple farmer in British Columbia 50 years from
now (just a slight exaggeration), then just keep doing what you're
doing.

Get it? Got it? Good. Aviation-free, sorry about that.

-Jay-