Al Gore's Private Jet

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I hope you're not suggesting that today's coach ticket provides the
same level of comfort and service as that available during the period
of federal airline regulation.


I'm suggesting you should stop whining. The service you desire is available
at a price. If you want the service pay the price.

"flynrider via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:7050f9c234ea4@uwe...

Have you seen the BBC's documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming
Swindle"? It features many reputable scientists (that don't get paid by
oil
companies), and provides an insightful review of Gores charts and graphs
by
actual climatologists. They point out that the man-caused theory of
global
warming only works if you ignore the historical climate data that does not
fit the model.

I highly recommend it.


I've seen parts of it. Very well done, very informative.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:38:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Are you able to provide examples that support that assertion?


"Although it is popular to claim that smaller class size leads to better
learning, especially in our public schools, I'm not aware of any empirical
data to support this claim. In the US, the average class size in our public
schools is 30, whereas in Japan it is 45--yet Japanese students have
outperformed American students for decades. With regard to freshman
composition, I know of only one published empirical study (Feldman, 1984,
Class size and college students' evaluation of teachers and courses,
Research in Higher Education, 20, 45-116), but it does not address the issue
of class size and performance. There may be others, but if so, they are not
well known. Given the number of variables associated with student
performance--motivation, previous training, students' sex, SES, teacher
expectations, teacher training and methodology, reading ability,
intelligence, etc.--I'm not sure how one could go about even researching
this question in a way that would control all the variables. Having stated
what may be obvious, I would note that much anecdotal evidence supports the
view that effective composition instruction entails establishing a mentoring
apprenticeship with students. If this view is correct, and I believe it is,
then the "ideal" class size would be much smaller than 12. In fact, a
composition teacher would never have more than 4 or 5 students per year."

http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/580



If it is indeed true, to what do you attribute the success of those
schools with greater class sizes in producing high student
achievement?


"Japanese teachers believe that large classes are better than small ones
because they encourage peer relationships and interaction. They also lower
the salience of the teacher as the focus of the students' attention."

"Learning to go to school in Japan." - page 56, Lois Peak, University of
California Press


That is indeed interesting information of which I was completely
unaware.

My personal observation of Los Angeles area high school classes in the
mid '80s (incidental to work I was performing in the classrooms
throughout the school), ranged from the teachers being overloaded at
times to the point of not being able to address the needs of all the
kids, to the teachers being completely overwhelmed by obstreperous
students who paid little to no attention to the lessons the teachers
were attempting teach. I recall one typing class where there were
three or four students huddled around the teacher while the rest of
them indulged in boisterous, disruptive behavior. It was shocking to
witness. I don't recall a single class of calm students intent upon
learning. At the time, I attributed the joke that passed for
education to the teachers being out numbered. Perhaps I was wrong.

Thanks for the information.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:39:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


I think I'm better off sticking with objective sources.

Do your objective sources mention the rapid rate of polar ice melting,
and consequences it may cause as a result of altering the "conveyer
belt" ocean currents?

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:41:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

So for you the issue is all about who's to blame, not about how to
mitigate it?


I don't think anyone's to blame and it doesn't need to be mitigated. Why do
you conclude that global warming, whether man-made or natural, is
necessarily bad?


There are a number of reasons.

For instance, it is my understanding that Polar Bears are drowning
because they are too exhausted to reach sea ice that has retreated to
record levels. Should this result in a reduction in the Polar Bear
population, it will cause native peoples of the polar latitudes to
abandon their traditional ways of life.

The ice covering Greenland is currently melting at all time record
rates. That feeds a positive feedback system in which the incident
isolation is no longer reflected back into space, but absorbed by the
exposed land leading to an increase of environmental temperatures.
That accelerates melting.

If the less dense melt water dilutes the mineral laden sea water at
the poles, it is possible that it may disrupt the ocean current
"conveyer" that causes the historical climates to which we are
accustomed, and it may disrupt ocean biota to the point of reducing
available nutrients for sea life....

You should really view the movie.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Do your objective sources mention the rapid rate of polar ice melting,
and consequences it may cause as a result of altering the "conveyer
belt" ocean currents?


Yup.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:48:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

The influence of big corporations on government policy is appalling.


If the government stopped setting policy big corporations would stop seeking
to influence them.


In that case, what would be government's role?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

There are a number of reasons.

For instance, it is my understanding that Polar Bears are drowning
because they are too exhausted to reach sea ice that has retreated to
record levels. Should this result in a reduction in the Polar Bear
population, it will cause native peoples of the polar latitudes to
abandon their traditional ways of life.

The ice covering Greenland is currently melting at all time record
rates. That feeds a positive feedback system in which the incident
isolation is no longer reflected back into space, but absorbed by the
exposed land leading to an increase of environmental temperatures.
That accelerates melting.

If the less dense melt water dilutes the mineral laden sea water at
the poles, it is possible that it may disrupt the ocean current
"conveyer" that causes the historical climates to which we are
accustomed, and it may disrupt ocean biota to the point of reducing
available nutrients for sea life....


Nobody disputes there will be changes, but you seem to believe that any
changes are necessarily bad.



You should really view the movie.


I'll stick with science.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:41:46 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:05:17 -0500, 601XL Builder
wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet wrote in
:

But to do so we are screwing which nature which the environmentalists
have been saying is BAD for the last 50 years or so.
Oh, you mean like banning fluorocarbon aerosol propellants to diminish
the destruction of the ozone layer? :-(

Then there is the whole issue that the warming trend isn't even limited
to Earth and that Mars is experiencing global warming as well.
That's a diversionary argument that skirts the issue of the effect of
global warming on the potential extinction of species, flooding of
coastal land, and ocean current disruption.

Yes, any facts that counter the global warming nuts are considered
diversionary. I also like how they explain EVERYTHING via the global
warming argument. Have a warmer day that normal ... global warming!
Have a colder day than normal ... global warming! McDonalds burn your
Big Mac ... global warming! Ok, I made up the last one, but the GW nuts
are almost at that level now.

Matt

It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
motion picture yet.

Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.

Gore's film doesn't contain information, so watching the complete film
is a waste of time. I did attend a lecture recently by Ira Magaziner
who is chair of the Clinton Climate Initiative. After 1.5 hours of
lecture, I remain absolutely convinced that global warming is just a
another scam to line the pockets of Clinton, Gore and their cronies.

Matt

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:46:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
motion picture yet.

Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.

Does Gore take a different position in the film than he has elsewhere when
speaking on the issue?


It's not about Gore's position. It's about the overwhelming evidence
presented.


No, it is about the overwhelming evidence omitted.

Matt