Petitions, petitions - A Schattie-like response.

Richard Henry wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:

As a precautionary parallel, however, imagine yourself seated in the
passenger seat of an automobile where the driver is gradually increasing his
pressure on the accelerator pedal. He agrees with you that there has been
shown to be strong linkage between the pressure on the pedal and the power
generated by the engine, and also that there has been shown to be strong
linkage between the power generated by the engine and the speed of the
vehicle. However, he denies that his activity is causing the increased
vehicle speed. At what point should you suggest to the driver that he
reduce the pressure on the pedal?

Personally, I find the stakes too high if we just do nothing, but I also
fear that it is too late to avoid negative effects on human life on Earth no
matter what we do.

Consider that the choice is not between doing something obvious and
doing something stupid but between trying to ameliorate the problems
caused by climate change and/or pollution and pretty much sending the
world's economy down the tubes.

There are downsides as well as upsides and either way involves a gamble.
I don't think it's sensible to bet that the sky will fall within my
grandchildren's lifetime. That doesn't mean there's no problem. There
are always problems, and the biggest one is our elected officials with
special reference to the Educational Coven. Don't get me started.

That being said, I'm virtuous as hell because I ride my bicycle more
than I drive my car, buy everything I can used for cash and throw out no
more than 2 gallons of trash (non-recyclable/non-yardwaste and no, I
don't have a garbage disposal or compost heap) per week.

And I don't watch reality TV.

--
Cheers,
Bev
*******************************************
"Let them all go to hell, except Cave 76"
-- Mel Brooks

The Real Bev wrote:
(2) that while global
warming is probably happening, there is no proof -- or even serious
evidence -- that anything man does is at significant -- if any --
fault; and (3) conservation etc. is good even if it won't make any
significant change to global climate change.

Scientists decades ago were warning of greenhouse effect and global warming.
When I was growing up,my mother wouldn't let us buy or use aerosols because
of this.

I guess the fact that it was predicted, and now it appears to be happening,
is a bit too close ot home for me. Sure, we've had warm-ups and
cool-downs over the life of the Earth, but thre's too many coincidences with
this one. And what's really worrying is the speed with which the heating is
happening.

Here in Australia, the climate has definitely changed, and it's having a
devastating effect. Whether it's just a blip, or part of something bigger,
we don't know.but it's forcing everyone to sit up and take notice.


--
ant
Don't try to reply to my email addy:
I'm borrowing that of the latest
scammer/spammer

On Dec 15, 3:55 pm, "ant" wrote:

Scientists decades ago were warning of greenhouse effect and global warming.
When I was growing up,my mother wouldn't let us buy or use aerosols because
of this.

"Decades ago" it wasn't scientists either. It was once again people
with an agenda and profit motive. Oh yeah it was a coming ice age too.
Weren't aerosols to do with the ozone hole? Other than that you got
everything else right.

On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "Richard Henry" wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in ...





Doofus Fighter wrote:

On Dec 13, 2:54 pm, Walt wrote:
BrritSki wrote:
Doofus Fighter wrote:
On Dec 13, 2:14 pm, BrritSki wrote:
Doofus Fighter wrote:

A couple of you have questioned the internet petition ...

Vinnie, check your meds. HTH HAND

Actually, here's something scary - for you not me, I'm current.

Then you should go back and politely ask for a refund. You're
apparently reading and believing people like Don Surber and
Michelle Malkin. If their arguments make sense, that's proof
positive that you've got the dosage wrong.

No idea who these people are. Are they actual scientists or merely
political writers?

I wonder what their position was on Duke Lacrosse. You still want to
compare transcripts. Actually it's 3 degrees BA biology/Chemistry,
MBA Finance, BSN (Nursing) Sigma Theta Tau and Magna Cum Laude. Ya
think I've got enough science.

FWIW, my husband is a Caltech physicist/statistician/programmer and was
curious about the data -- so he downloaded and analyzed whatever he
could find including the stuff that Gore et al. referenced. He found
that (1) they lied about the data; (2) that while global warming is
probably happening, there is no proof -- or even serious evidence --
that anything man does is at significant -- if any -- fault; and (3)
conservation etc. is good even if it won't make any significant change
to global climate change.

He spent months on this, playing with the actual data. For him it's not
a question of choosing whom to follow, which is what you have to do if
you can't do the math yourself. He has no axe to grind, no vested
interest, and enough brainpower for several smart people. I choose to
follow him.

And I approve of what Vinnie says. He has passion and he's interested
enough to to put in effort and study.

Give 'em hell, Vinnie!

I have done my own research (or at least reading of the research and data
involved in the research). My conclusions:

The world is warming. It can be measured.
I don't think that is debated.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. It can be measured.

Nor that.

CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. That has been
experimentally demonstrated.

That is different than proven. Hasn't it also been "scientifically
demonstrated" that cooling could also occur?
I think that was the deal with the coming ice age of the 70's.

The timing of the CO2 increase in the current warming episode is
uncomfortabley coincidental with the increase of human use of fossil fuels
starting about 1850.

However, I agree with the skeptics that the linkage between human activity,
the observed increase in CO2 levels, and the observed increase in global
temperature has not been absolutely shown. Also, I agree that the current
climate changes are not outside the range of historical (or
archeo-historical) changes. So there is some room for AGW skeptics to feel
comfortable.

As a precautionary parallel, however, imagine yourself seated in the
passenger seat of an automobile where the driver is gradually increasing his
pressure on the accelerator pedal. He agrees with you that there has been
shown to be strong linkage between the pressure on the pedal and the power
generated by the engine, and also that there has been shown to be strong
linkage between the power generated by the engine and the speed of the
vehicle. However, he denies that his activity is causing the increased
vehicle speed. At what point should you suggest to the driver that he
reduce the pressure on the pedal?

Not even close. C'mon Rich is that all you got? You're making our
point with that one.

Personally, I find the stakes too high if we just do nothing, but I also
fear that it is too late to avoid negative effects on human life on Earth no
matter what we do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article ,
The Real Bev wrote:

FWIW, my husband is a Caltech physicist/statistician/programmer and was
curious about the data -- so he downloaded and analyzed whatever he
could find including the stuff that Gore et al. referenced. He found
that (1) they lied about the data; (2) that while global warming is
probably happening, there is no proof -- or even serious evidence --
that anything man does is at significant -- if any -- fault; and (3)
conservation etc. is good even if it won't make any significant change
to global climate change.

AGW Contrarians tend to do this, proclaim their titles as a substitute
for scientific research on GW, and then try to disprove the data as
wrong, because of their credentials, not because of any scientific study
or the data on any one peer reviewed study. Whether your husband is a
former scientist or not, it is the research studies and peer reviewed
reports that should be argued.

Here is a reference about Gore's validity in his film, "An
Inconvenient Truth".

http://tinyurl.com/gke7d

Al Gore shouldn't be the issue, when discussing if the scientific
research is valid or not that show AGW is happening. He is a messenger,
the research and findings are independent of him.

On your (2) point.

"that while global warming is
probably happening, there is no proof -- or even serious evidence --
that anything man does is at significant -- if any -- fault"

Either you are ignorant, or you are lying, take your pick. I have no
problem giving you only these two options, given the statement you made
that there is no serious evidence of AGW.

http://tinyurl.com/2e6o2z
http://tinyurl.com/3bl5e6

There is plenty of evidence, research and studies that Global Warming
is AGW and it has already begun. Where there are large doubts, are the
future consequences to the planet.

If the data is being manipulated, The IPCC, the NAS etc. would like to
know where, given they didn't come to their conclusions half hearted.
The IPCC recent report is probably conservative in their findings..

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm
http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/

Finally if you want a youtube debate that was on Aussie TV (ABC) in a
roundtable discussion of viewpoints about AGW, it gives the viewpoints
on all sides...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlbvJEZA_4&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yoyqFNCoDRY&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y5gUd6y3zKU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SIsX5I6mVWo&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_RY_qEyHbj0&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YRnyHIheR0I&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I24QOvMUUyw&feature=related

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:23:27 -0800, "Richard Henry"
wrote this crap:


He spent months on this, playing with the actual data. For him it's not
a question of choosing whom to follow, which is what you have to do if
you can't do the math yourself. He has no axe to grind, no vested
interest, and enough brainpower for several smart people. I choose to
follow him.

I have done my own research (or at least reading of the research and data
involved in the research). My conclusions:

The world is warming. It can be measured.

This seems to be true.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. It can be measured.
CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. That has been
experimentally demonstrated.

This is true, however it is proven that the co2 levels go up after the
temp goes up.

The timing of the CO2 increase in the current warming episode is
uncomfortabley coincidental with the increase of human use of fossil fuels
starting about 1850.

Uh huh. Also the use of water has gone up. So what?



As a precautionary parallel, however, imagine yourself seated in the
passenger seat of an automobile where the driver is gradually increasing his
pressure on the accelerator pedal. He agrees with you that there has been
shown to be strong linkage between the pressure on the pedal and the power
generated by the engine, and also that there has been shown to be strong
linkage between the power generated by the engine and the speed of the
vehicle. However, he denies that his activity is causing the increased
vehicle speed. At what point should you suggest to the driver that he
reduce the pressure on the pedal?


This is silly. Automobiles are engineered to go faster when more gas
is applied.


Personally, I find the stakes too high if we just do nothing, but I also
fear that it is too late to avoid negative effects on human life on Earth no
matter what we do.

Do what you want, but don't tell me what to do, dumbass.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

On Dec 15, 3:51 pm, pigo wrote:
On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "Richard Henry" wrote:



"The Real Bev" wrote in ...

Doofus Fighter wrote:

On Dec 13, 2:54 pm, Walt wrote:
BrritSki wrote:
Doofus Fighter wrote:
On Dec 13, 2:14 pm, BrritSki wrote:
Doofus Fighter wrote:

A couple of you have questioned the internet petition ...

Vinnie, check your meds. HTH HAND

Actually, here's something scary - for you not me, I'm current.

Then you should go back and politely ask for a refund. You're
apparently reading and believing people like Don Surber and
Michelle Malkin. If their arguments make sense, that's proof
positive that you've got the dosage wrong.

No idea who these people are. Are they actual scientists or merely
political writers?

I wonder what their position was on Duke Lacrosse. You still want to
compare transcripts. Actually it's 3 degrees BA biology/Chemistry,
MBA Finance, BSN (Nursing) Sigma Theta Tau and Magna Cum Laude. Ya
think I've got enough science.

FWIW, my husband is a Caltech physicist/statistician/programmer and was
curious about the data -- so he downloaded and analyzed whatever he
could find including the stuff that Gore et al. referenced. He found
that (1) they lied about the data; (2) that while global warming is
probably happening, there is no proof -- or even serious evidence --
that anything man does is at significant -- if any -- fault; and (3)
conservation etc. is good even if it won't make any significant change
to global climate change.

He spent months on this, playing with the actual data. For him it's not
a question of choosing whom to follow, which is what you have to do if
you can't do the math yourself. He has no axe to grind, no vested
interest, and enough brainpower for several smart people. I choose to
follow him.

And I approve of what Vinnie says. He has passion and he's interested
enough to to put in effort and study.

Give 'em hell, Vinnie!

I have done my own research (or at least reading of the research and data
involved in the research). My conclusions:

The world is warming. It can be measured.

I don't think that is debated.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. It can be measured.

Nor that.

CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. That has been
experimentally demonstrated.

That is different than proven. Hasn't it also been "scientifically
demonstrated" that cooling could also occur?

Not to my knowledge.

I think that was the deal with the coming ice age of the 70's.

The "coming ice age of the 70's" was a creation of popular magazines
of ther time (perhaps a spinoff of the "nuclear winter" warnings) and
was roundly scoffed at in scientific circles.


The timing of the CO2 increase in the current warming episode is
uncomfortabley coincidental with the increase of human use of fossil fuels
starting about 1850.

However, I agree with the skeptics that the linkage between human activity,
the observed increase in CO2 levels, and the observed increase in global
temperature has not been absolutely shown. Also, I agree that the current
climate changes are not outside the range of historical (or
archeo-historical) changes. So there is some room for AGW skeptics to feel
comfortable.

As a precautionary parallel, however, imagine yourself seated in the
passenger seat of an automobile where the driver is gradually increasing his
pressure on the accelerator pedal. He agrees with you that there has been
shown to be strong linkage between the pressure on the pedal and the power
generated by the engine, and also that there has been shown to be strong
linkage between the power generated by the engine and the speed of the
vehicle. However, he denies that his activity is causing the increased
vehicle speed. At what point should you suggest to the driver that he
reduce the pressure on the pedal?

Not even close. C'mon Rich is that all you got? You're making our
point with that one.

Just trying to simplify the example.

On Dec 15, 4:02 pm, Harry wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:23:27 -0800, "Richard Henry"
wrote this crap:



He spent months on this, playing with the actual data. For him it's not
a question of choosing whom to follow, which is what you have to do if
you can't do the math yourself. He has no axe to grind, no vested
interest, and enough brainpower for several smart people. I choose to
follow him.

I have done my own research (or at least reading of the research and data
involved in the research). My conclusions:

The world is warming. It can be measured.

This seems to be true.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. It can be measured.
CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. That has been
experimentally demonstrated.

This is true, however it is proven that the co2 levels go up after the
temp goes up.

The timing of the CO2 increase in the current warming episode is
uncomfortabley coincidental with the increase of human use of fossil fuels
starting about 1850.

Uh huh. Also the use of water has gone up. So what?



As a precautionary parallel, however, imagine yourself seated in the
passenger seat of an automobile where the driver is gradually increasing his
pressure on the accelerator pedal. He agrees with you that there has been
shown to be strong linkage between the pressure on the pedal and the power
generated by the engine, and also that there has been shown to be strong
linkage between the power generated by the engine and the speed of the
vehicle. However, he denies that his activity is causing the increased
vehicle speed. At what point should you suggest to the driver that he
reduce the pressure on the pedal?

This is silly. Automobiles are engineered to go faster when more gas
is applied.

Personally, I find the stakes too high if we just do nothing, but I also
fear that it is too late to avoid negative effects on human life on Earth no
matter what we do.

Do what you want, but don't tell me what to do, dumbass.

Thus my fears are personified.

On Dec 15, 3:46 pm, pigo wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:55 pm, "ant" wrote:

Scientists decades ago were warning of greenhouse effect and global warming.
When I was growing up,my mother wouldn't let us buy or use aerosols because
of this.

"Decades ago" it wasn't scientists either. It was once again people
with an agenda and profit motive. Oh yeah it was a coming ice age too.
Weren't aerosols to do with the ozone hole? Other than that you got
everything else right.

Good example. The Montreal Protocol (reducing CFC production to
protect the ozone layer) seems to be working.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:09:59 -0800, The Real Bev
wrote:

He spent months on this, playing with the actual data.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...ll-ends-p1.php

A much faster and more reliable result can be obtained using methods
not unfamiliar to those who have ever worked for McKinsey:-

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...ll-ends-p1.php

Suzie
--
Suzieflame

Adieu alt.horror