[jhowelb]

News flash!!!!!

It was Clinton who backed out of Kyoto.

The 95% is that it is nothing more than a hoax, and if there is any warming happening there is a 100% chance that mankind can do nothing about it, so why not use it to skin the rubes?

But the rubes still aint buying it!!

[jhowelb]

Hi jhowelb,
I'm back and I see you're back to your same o'l faulty logic tricks. Where should I start, Al and Bill left the country in great shape, we were running a surplus not a deficit. The economy was great everything was wonderful. Then along came the imbecile in chief. Running up massive deficits while giving huge tax breaks to billionaires. Arguably the most incompetent president in the history of the republic, certainly in my lifetime. Don't blame his failings on 911. This was botched by him as well. You really ought to see Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911. To look at that moron when he was told for the second time that another plane had hit the twin towers, when he looked furtively around for someone to tell him what to do, it was priceless. To me that told it all. He wasn't running the country Cheny was. He was just a Face to put on the platform, his function was to garner the votes of the right wing Christian conservatives. The apostles of ignorance.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Right Michael Moore, a glittering paragon of absolute ignorance!
Did you forget two wars, Wxyz?
Have you forgotten? I'll remind you!
New York, Twin Towers, the terrorists that cigar in chief couldn't handle.

[debogus]

Al and Bill ?
Waco
ruby ridge
authorized the bombing of a aspirin factory
authorized the missile attack on empty tents
Talk about your dog wagging'

And the greatest mystery ,Vince Foster
Dude broke every rule in a suicide

The worse president in history ? Well according to the left he really isn't a president because he stole it ,right.

You even played the Mikey Moore card in the same hand.
Come on you can do better than that.
George at least violated enemy combatants rights ( according to the left which isn't sure who team they are on )( which is a good thing actually on both accounts)
Unlike "definition of it is " and the Nobel winning egore .
And to top it off the liberals didn't shed a tear for that pairs victims.
The FBI agents that KILLED Weavers family didn't do any time and are still on the job.
Compare that "side show" to anything in the current admin.
ACLU LIBERALS = hypocrites
Sheeple translation , progressives
And the lefts party icon is a ?
Remember elephants never forget.
As I throw in the twin tower bombing in 93, oklahoma bombing(just because the pc crowd , goes on about not all terrorist are musslim and bring up McVieh , which happened on Bills watch,)the COLE, that embassy,there was quite afew wasnt there?

Yep I think they left US a TARGET.



Sorry must have been something you wrote that set off the voices

And remember I'm not voting for McCain
I'm voting against Obama/hillary
Woo back Zell Miller and I'll vote for him.

My 2 cents

[Mariss Freimanis]

I love it when a herd of 1,000 scientists are needed to prove something. Why stop there? Why not 10,000 or 100,000 scientists? Kind of like the toothpaste commercials from years ago "9 out of 10 dentists agree pure concentrated Sodium Hydroxide cures tooth decay and bad breath!".

I like the ideologs that parade 1,000 idiot scientists around by the nose as if it mattered. Not enough scientists to tip the scale in your favor? Get another shovel-full of the little white-coated buggers. Maybe that will do it!

Science is not like that. All it takes is one scientist that sees the truth. Think Einstein.

Mariss

[Geof]

......Science is not like that. All it takes is one scientist that sees the truth. Think Einstein.

Mariss

I think a better example is Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift; certainly back in the early 1900's hundreds of scientists thought he was nuts. He wasn't.

[jhowelb]

The buzz words are "a consensus of scientists".

What the hell does consensus have to do with science?

[jhowelb]

science (sns)
The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.

hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

[jhowelb]

Please note. The one word missing from all the hype and crap about GW/CC is the word PROOF!

When chicken little tells me that all the farm animals agree, the sky is indeed falling my response is "prove it!" Instead I get a lecture about MY flawed logic. It is flawed logic to say I don;t believe you...PROVE IT! Where are the repeatable experiments? With Antarctic ice getting thicker and wider and with the seasonal return if ice in the Arctic and with record low temps occurring daily...WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Enough of your innuendo and wild rantings and concern about how to extract co2....
BRING ME SOME INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF!

[One of Many]

The buzz words are "a consensus of scientists".

What the hell does consensus have to do with science?

From a non-scientific layman's perspective:

That is where the order of the brotherhood sticks to levels of agreement, confidence, certainty and likelihood as a cohesive entity. The same or similar elements that steer jihad without a conscience.

The least common denominator I fear, is that they are both willing to ignore acts of desperation to achieve the ultimate goal. Internal impediments become a percept of the rules.


DC

[One of Many]

Please note. The one word missing from all the hype and crap about GW/CC is the word PROOF!

When chicken little tells me that all the farm animals agree, the sky is indeed falling my response is "prove it!" Instead I get a lecture about MY flawed logic. It is flawed logic to say I don;t believe you...PROVE IT! Where are the repeatable experiments? With Antarctic ice getting thicker and wider and with the seasonal return if ice in the Arctic and with record low temps occurring daily...WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Enough of your innuendo and wild rantings and concern about how to extract co2....
BRING ME SOME INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF!

Do you realize what you are asking for? We don't have time.......it may be too late......

I'd expect they would need to start with the invention of fire on through that of the wheel and its negative impact on earth's environment where it all started us breeding like rabbits that begat THEM to warn US of mans wrongs!

It must-a-been ordained!

DC

[jhowelb]

I've become familiar with the dance, they seem to operate on the mantra, "if you can't blind them with brilliance then baffle them with bull****!"

[jhowelb]

Damned censors, can't even express disgust!

[One of Many]

I love it when a herd of 1,000 scientists are needed to prove something. Why stop there? Why not 10,000 or 100,000 scientists? Kind of like the toothpaste commercials from years ago "9 out of 10 dentists agree pure concentrated Sodium Hydroxide cures tooth decay and bad breath!".

I like the ideologs that parade 1,000 idiot scientists around by the nose as if it mattered. Not enough scientists to tip the scale in your favor? Get another shovel-full of the little white-coated buggers. Maybe that will do it!

Science is not like that. All it takes is one scientist that sees the truth. Think Einstein.

Mariss

Mariss,

Do you think there ought to be at least one Einstein in the bunch we could give the benefit of the doubt?

I don't mind the IPCC conclusion if it holds water, as much as I do the solution considering how globally unrealistic that may be. From what I have read pro or con, on both sides of the report, the conclusion has huge gaps that do not allow for redress of outsiders with any influence.

I doubt it can be made an open and shut case, without further scrutiny, but by the way it looks, the policy makers intend to have all the power wrapped up, decisions made and a plan in place halting discussions as Dictators normally do.

Removing the potential for monetary gain from it would be a good start. Tangible sellable assets in developed mitigating technology are one thing, but "lucky charm carbon credits" to pay for that development do not leave a lot to be desired. I'd prefer the governments take a hands off approach to taxing businesses that show promising progress on their own investments in themselves to that end. That is not a subsidy, that is letting them use their own capital and somehow audit the progress.


DC

[Mariss Freimanis]

DC,

There is enough doubt about this entire GW debacle to fill an ocean. Science is a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. A novel idea is formulated by a theoretical scientist, it looks promising and early adapters champion it. Time passes, skeptics amass data and reason to counteract the new idea. A decades long battle between theoretical and experimental scientists ensues to test the idea. If the idea is good, it may absorb through synthesis valid objections and become better. If the idea is bad, the same science that tests it comes up with a fatal bullet that kills the idea. In all instances, win lose or draw, human knowledge advances because of what is learned as a consequence of this contest.

What happens when science passes on to policy makers is there is no room left for doubt and no room for new or contrary evidence. Policy makers are not scientists so they deal with what is concrete. They have to implement practical solutions for perceived threats.

What bothers me is the short-circuiting of this process by the politicization of science. This has denatured and adulterated a vital link in the chain of human understanding and informed reaction. The necessary thesis and antithesis has not been allowed to play out here to determine what the truth is. Rather, the idea was seized and proclaimed as true by the junk-science inventor of the internet. He got a much devalued accolade for his efforts from the pygmies that now dispense a once noble prize. What we get is flawed science in the hands of policy makers that very well may place untold pointless burdens on our way of life. I don't think politicizing science was worth it for any reason given the damage it will cause.

Mariss

[VWSatOz]

What's this COMING climate change? I thought it was already happening & it will just get worse if we don't all do something. The biggest challange for engineers to overcome... to stop using fossil fuels. I mean dig all the carbon out from underground & burn it with all the air you can find!!! What can we expect! It's a formula with a final result that any dummy could forsee. It's like bashing the globe with a big stick! Cop this!!!

[russeller]

I have a 1908 Almanac that describs the 8 planets in our solar system. It has to be true because it's in print. I have a later Almanac however that disuputes this since Pluto was discovered in 1930, also indisputable because it is in print in a scientific document.....but wait...... what will the 2008 Almanac say ??... now that Pluto has been declassified officially, now just a dwarf planet.... so, what changed ? Reality ? ... or only some mens perception of reality ? Global warming enthusiasts are having a difficult time accepting the reality that global temperatures are actually declining. The missing polar ice has returned to nearly it's full ' pre-crisis' measurements. They obviously have not been shoveling the mid-west snow this year either. Maybe when Al Gore finally puts it in print they will accept it as fact. The only thing slowing the process down is that he hasn't figured out how to take credit for fixing the problem. Now thats going to be one damn powerful movie .....

I think I'll wait for the book...........

[xyzdonna]

Al and Bill ?
Waco
ruby ridge
authorized the bombing of a aspirin factory
authorized the missile attack on empty tents
Talk about your dog wagging'

And the greatest mystery ,Vince Foster
Dude broke every rule in a suicide

The worse president in history ? Well according to the left he really isn't a president because he stole it ,right.

You even played the Mikey Moore card in the same hand.
Come on you can do better than that.
George at least violated enemy combatants rights ( according to the left which isn't sure who team they are on )( which is a good thing actually on both accounts)
Unlike "definition of it is " and the Nobel winning egore .
And to top it off the liberals didn't shed a tear for that pairs victims.
The FBI agents that KILLED Weavers family didn't do any time and are still on the job.
Compare that "side show" to anything in the current admin.
ACLU LIBERALS = hypocrites
Sheeple translation , progressives
And the lefts party icon is a ?
Remember elephants never forget.
As I throw in the twin tower bombing in 93, oklahoma bombing(just because the pc crowd , goes on about not all terrorist are musslim and bring up McVieh , which happened on Bills watch,)the COLE, that embassy,there was quite afew wasnt there?

Yep I think they left US a TARGET.



Sorry must have been something you wrote that set off the voices

And remember I'm not voting for McCain
I'm voting against Obama/hillary
Woo back Zell Miller and I'll vote for him.

My 2 cents

Hi debogus,
Ruby Ridge was a tragedy but I don't blame Clinton for that like I don't blame Bush for 911. Of course Bush's handling of the aftermath is fair game. I wasn't alluding to Moore's journalistic integrity, just to the scene of Bush when told of the second plane hitting the twin tower. Moore is funny and he uses hyperbole and comedy to reveal some very real truths about our society. But of course he does embellish things somewhat.
The ACLU has done a marvelous job of protecting our freedoms from the heavy handedness of government. This surprises me that you would oppose them given your views. Zell Miller? You must be from Georgia, one of the states I vote in.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

You are still not reading things correctly: The IPCC pronouncement is that Global Warming is occurring and there is a 95% certainty that Human activity is contributing to, or causing it.

Hi Geof,
Opps, thanks for the correction! It seems like you've caught me seeing things as they aren't.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

DC,

There is enough doubt about this entire GW debacle to fill an ocean. Science is a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. A novel idea is formulated by a theoretical scientist, it looks promising and early adapters champion it. Time passes, skeptics amass data and reason to counteract the new idea. A decades long battle between theoretical and experimental scientists ensues to test the idea. If the idea is good, it may absorb through synthesis valid objections and become better. If the idea is bad, the same science that tests it comes up with a fatal bullet that kills the idea. In all instances, win lose or draw, human knowledge advances because of what is learned as a consequence of this contest.

What happens when science passes on to policy makers is there is no room left for doubt and no room for new or contrary evidence. Policy makers are not scientists so they deal with what is concrete. They have to implement practical solutions for perceived threats.

What bothers me is the short-circuiting of this process by the politicization of science. This has denatured and adulterated a vital link in the chain of human understanding and informed reaction. The necessary thesis and antithesis has not been allowed to play out here to determine what the truth is. Rather, the idea was seized and proclaimed as true by the junk-science inventor of the internet. He got a much devalued accolade for his efforts from the pygmies that now dispense a once noble prize. What we get is flawed science in the hands of policy makers that very well may place untold pointless burdens on our way of life. I don't think politicizing science was worth it for any reason given the damage it will cause.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
The evidence is there as stated in my nephew's email. Almost all (but not all) climatologists are in agreement. There really is no other rational explanation for for the current climate change other than it is anthropogenic. Your first statement is wrong, there is very little doubt. You go on to describe the scientific method and seem to think that lends credence to your hypothesis. Your statement: "What bothers me is the short-circuiting of this process by the politicization of science." This bothers me as well and is exactly what the current administration has done. They have completely ignored the science in everything from global warming to stem cell research much to our detriment. The whole problem with your arguments is that we don't have time to prove them to folks like you who don't believe because you don't want to believe. I find it instructive that virtually everyone who disagrees with GW is of a conservative mindset. You don't want to modify your lifestyle so you don't believe. It is an obvious bias. The GW debate is pretty much over. Time won't allow us to convince every skeptic. We have to move forward to save the planet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

What's this COMING climate change? I thought it was already happening & it will just get worse if we don't all do something. The biggest challange for engineers to overcome... to stop using fossil fuels. I mean dig all the carbon out from underground & burn it with all the air you can find!!! What can we expect! It's a formula with a final result that any dummy could forsee. It's like bashing the globe with a big stick! Cop this!!!

Hi VWSatOz,
I agree completely, but you'll find we are in the minority here so be forewarned.
Take care,
xyzdonna