I Will Never Understand Wind

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article daBee.50320$r53.11838@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck wrote:
Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell
me
what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
their dire warnings about the next 400 years.

There is a HUGE difference between climatology and meteorology. If you
don't understand the difference between a climatologist and a
meteorologist it's no wonder you have the misconceptions you do about
climate change.

A climatologist is NOT a meterologist.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (Sponsored by Oregon Inst. of Science &
Medicine)

Scientists On Global Warming Petition
Over 17,000 scientists had signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption
of the Earth's climate."

"Jay Honeck" writes:

But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
variables).

Therein lies the rub, eh?

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science" of
"global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.

Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
least here in the U.S.

Whereas I see it's *denial* as being driven by transparent motives.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Peace, love, dope, -- incense, hashpipes and hare krishna! Oh, AND
Earthshoes, too.




"Tom Fleischman" k wrote in
message
news:2005050613080975249%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju nkatmacdotcom@junkjunk...
On 2005-05-06 09:33:35 -0400, "Jay Honeck"
said:

I'm not apoplectic Jay, just amazed. I'm amazed that seemingly
intelligent people like you and many others in this forum can be so
misled, bamboozled, hoodwinked, led astray and run amok that you
support causes, agendas, and world views that do not serve your own
best interests.

It just boggles my mind.

Well, then, Tom, we *do* agree on something.

I was thinking the very same thing about YOU.

;-)

Somehow I knew you were going to say that.

The difference is, my position supports my own best interests, like
seeing my great-grand-children have a planet they can inhabit. My main
worry these day is wondering if we as a species will survive long
enough for me to see my great-grand-children.

I'll give up now. You've obviously been hopelessly convinced by the
fascist, corporatist, propaganda you're being fed by the flat earth
society media whores.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Today, for the first time in weeks, dawned clear, cool, and calm. After
a VERY early spring (with temps in the 80s for over a week), we have
experienced extremely high winds and record COLD temps.

snip

I poked a hole in the sky for about an hour on Wednesday evening. Took off
on 28 with information Hotel, on return they were using 10 and information
was Juliet.

--
Frank....H

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
[...]
Over 17,000 scientists had signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption
of the Earth's climate."

That's quite a different statement than "there's no such thing as global
warming".

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
[...]
I think people on the opposite end of the "sky is falling" spectrum
would listen to someone alittle more if that person did not use all these
man made things, lived in a simple cabin in the woods with no electricity
etc., and wiped his butt with a fallen leaf or some such. As the old
saying goes," Practice what you preach."

So the only legitimate conservation is to not consume at all?

Bull.

Dylan Smith wrote:
snip
In any case, it's a problem that cannot be ignored. It's not just
that
burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's:

* fossil fuels are not infinite, and indeed although there may be
enough
to outlast everyone alive today, the *cheap* oil is rather more
limited. Our current lifestyles don't just depend on oil, they
depend
on oil that is very cheap.
* we are having to depend on hostile nations for energy supply
* the damage will not be reversable, at least not in our lifetimes.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first two points. The economic and
political ramifications of relying on cheap oil are not good for
anyone. Of course, the way most economies work, alternatives will not
be exploited until the oil becomes more expensive than the alternative.
I can easily see a day when oil at $500/bbl will result in everyone
flying high-tech solar powered airplanes (*note aviation content!*) and
heating their homes with solar supplied hydrogen. When oil is no
longer economically feasable, something cheaper will take its place.

As for the last point, I'm convinced that the outcry over "global
warming" is just another round of a familiar hysteria. There is ample
anecdotal evidence on both sides of the issue, as seen in this thread
and all over the Internet. The planetary climate is so complex that I
have serious doubts about anyone who says that they underdstand how it
works, what it will do in the future, and why. The earth has been
through warming and cooling cycles for most of its existance, with the
last mini-ice age ending in the mid 1800s, prior to the industrial
revolution.

I'm old enough to remember that in the 70s, "climatologists" were
certain that the earth was fast falling into another Ice Age. In the
U.S. the hysteria was such that they even held highly publicized
Congressional hearings on the topic. The result? Recommendations that
billions should be spent to research the problem and save us from an
icey doom. This latest round is sounding all too familiar.

For the record, I don't know if man-made greenhouse gases are
seriously impacting global climates. From what I've read on the
subject, I'm not convinced that anyone else does either (with the
certainty that they claim).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Ahh My dear Peter,
Even in those primitive circumstances you would in fact be consuming. Just
not to the extent of how modern folks do it. You would have to hunt for
food, cut trees to build your cabin, heat and cook.
It's not bull, but the refusal to see the outright stupidity of someone
complaining about "global warming" while not doing anything to correct it ,
especially by flying airplanes around, is in deed bull.
Just like most problems some must be on the far right or the far left of
an issue, when the answer is usually in the middle somewhere. That was the
point of the post. I prefer the middle myself. I hunt , fish, garden , kayak
down whitewater, and really just enjoy the outdoors. Not to mention flying.
But modern man has to weigh the options. We need oil and other resources,
but we also need this planet. Need that happy middle ground, but we don't
need people who say they are so concerned for this issue while they
themselves are part of the problem.
Living is one thing, our hobbies that pollute is another , wouldn't you
agree? So to preach "global warming" while driving to the airport, to get in
a plane and fly for a few hours, to go home and sit and say somebody needs
to do something about our planet....it's like DUHHHHHHH!

Patrick
student SPL
aicraft structural mech

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

So the only legitimate conservation is to not consume at all?

Bull.

In article , Matt Barrow wrote:
'I'm feeling lucky' on Google brings the following reference.

From the University of North Dakota:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

"Most of the gases emitted by the ocean return to the oceans."

No support given for this assertion. It's also possibly bogus.

I notice they also used averages from just a couple volcano's including a
couple that a relatively "clean".

We aren't talking about, say, a 30% difference here - we are talking
about man made sources being *150* times greater. Even if their
estimates were off by an order of magnitude, man made emissions would
still be 15 times greater.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Even in those primitive circumstances you would in fact be consuming. Just
not to the extent of how modern folks do it. You would have to hunt for
food, cut trees to build your cabin, heat and cook.

Burning wood for energy is one of the worst forms of pollution, by the way.
But in any case, even if the lifestyle you suggest were the best way to
conserve, your claim is apparently that no one can claim to be a
conservationist unless they live that lifestyle. That's bull.

It's not bull, but the refusal to see the outright stupidity of someone
complaining about "global warming" while not doing anything to correct it
, especially by flying airplanes around, is in deed bull.

Who says they are not doing anything to correct it?

By your own admission, one can "conserve" without halting all consumption at
all. One can even use resources recreationally, without using them
wastefully. To characterize environmentalists as being different from
wasteful consumers only in their speech, and not in their actions, is to be
completely ignorant of the ways one can conserve while still engaging in an
active, fruitful, and entertained life.

Just like most problems some must be on the far right or the far left
of an issue, when the answer is usually in the middle somewhere.

That's true. So why do you assert that one has to take their lifestyle to
the extreme primitive in order to be a conservationist? Why do you assert
that it's hypocritical to do anything other than engage in the extreme
primitive lifestyle and at the same time talk of conservation?

That was the point of the post.

Really? You wrote:

" To say "the sky is falling" while you still drive your
car , plane , even use toilet paper to wipe your butt with ( think how many
trees are cut down for that every year! WOW! And that's just for my
bathroom! ) is not really sincere in your beliefs."

That is, you claim that someone arguing for conservation is insincere if
they use toilet paper. Again, that's just bull. And it's not at all the
point you claim to have been trying to make.

[...]
Living is one thing, our hobbies that pollute is another , wouldn't you
agree? So to preach "global warming" while driving to the airport, to get
in a plane and fly for a few hours, to go home and sit and say somebody
needs to do something about our planet....it's like DUHHHHHHH!

So far, it's been your writing on the topic that's "like DUHHHHHHH!" We
could shut down ALL recreational flying and not make a noticeable dent in
our consumption of fossil fuels. To claim that a recreational pilot is
hypocritical for arguing for conservation, even though they fly
recreationally, that's bull.

Pete