Petitions, petitions - A Schattie-like response.

A couple of you have questioned the internet petition I presented
claiming it's a fraud. I'm reminded of the Goracle's consensus list
which included a large number of non-scientists and scientists who
asked that their names be removed but weren't. Now we're hearing of
deliberate data manipulation by pro CO2'ers - the very same charges
were leveled at dissenters a while back. Do you possibly think that
intellectual dishonesty is uniformly owned by only one side especially
when money is involved? Gee, I'm reminded of all the ominous forecasts
we were getting about the Ozone layer. What about that? Consensus,
historically, does not prove anything - In the 19th century, consensus
said disease was spread by night vapors. For years we have heard that
egg yokes/cholesterol were bad for your health. Real Estate is a great
investment. In the 1970's, we were entering a new ice age.

I would also like to point out, that two people in particular -
Richard Henry and Ted Waldron seem to have a real problem with
dissenting points of view. Bear in mind that (they call me crazy) but
I haven't exhibited the aberrant behavior of deliberately provoking
Scott Abraham by calling him at home or taking him to court (and
losing - not to mention getting a police officer involved in real life
in order to prevent violence over the internet). You can take what I
provide and do with it what you want - but bear in mind that
significant dissension does exist about CO2 being the primary cause of
global warming. Critics argue that one of my sources WSJ is biased.
Well the NYT, Boston Globe are not biased. It is no accident that the
WSJ is written to the highest level of education of all the major
periodicals. The NYT a big proponent has severe financial difficulties
and they have been very embarrassed by a rash (shall we say serious
episodes of poor judgement). The quality of media coverage has to be
suspect.

My Uncle who recently retired from UNC-Medical School (He had a
million dollar grant- by the way - you should have seen all those
academics and their political infighting to secure it after he left),
told me two years ago that People lived their longest by not smoking/
drinking and staying the hell away from doctors. He said that the
human body is a extraordinarily complex mechanism and man's
intervention attempts are crude and often counterproductive.

He's absolutely right - medicines are often given to counteract the
side-effects of other medicines often with catastrophic effects. I've
had many patients on 15-20 different meds. I could give numerous
examples such as blood glucose control but you can look this stuff
up. The fact is that climate is at least as complex as bodily
functions (probably more - lots more). Numerous examples exist of
man's attempts to alter nature have all been wrought with side-
effects. Examples - Dams, Levies, What about that New Mexico fire
debacle a few years ago? that man-made desert lake suffering from
salinity toxicity in Southern California, farming practices in the
early 20th century, Africanized Honey Bees, the list goes on. As has
been pointed out, several people who were screaming about Global
Cooling 30 years ago have reversed their position - being as convinced
then about their position then as they are now. Interestingly, many
greens after having actively rejecting nuclear power facilities over
the years now see that as a solution. If we had taken a more pragmatic
stance about the eco-lobby, those plants might have been planned,
built and on-line reducing our need for coal/petroleum. They were in
error then what about now? Without direct causation (only correlation
and there is growing questions about what has come first chicken/egg)
being proven by CO2 increases, the CO2 eco-movement wants to sacrifice
(not necessarily in this order of importance - national economies,
reproductive freedom, how we live -(imagine living and working in
Florida w/o any A/C) etc. etc. While the so-called leadership flies in
private jets, makes millions off of scaring us hoping that we will
give up our right of self-governance to allow them to take charge.
These pundits have more often than not been wrong in the past,
horribly wrong - Not one of Paul Ehrlich's 1969 assertions in
Scientific American have come true. They can't even agree on the
predictions and yet we are going to forego 30% of our GDP for dubious/
miniscule results while many of the biggest polluters have no
restrictions at all (By the way not one country has made any Kyoto
benchmarks - I'd say that not one has actually decreased CO2
production but that might be an overreach). This agreement hasn't
worked, hasn't provided a workable framework and will never work - yet
they want to build on it. The CO2 people know it hasn't worked yet
they still promote it. Why is that? Is it just ****ing in the wind? Do
they know it's a sham? Who's right - We're in a cycle and it will
change. It's cyclical (astro-time) unrelated to CO2 and there is
nothing we can do about it (I personally think that it's this last one
but people throughout history have been unable to comprehend that they
are not the center of the universe)?

We should listen to the debate without political and economic agendas,
make up our own minds and proceed accordingly. Those that attempt to
belittle dissension and avoid the discussion should be shunned.

Read the material, do your own research, make up your own mind.

Doofus Fighter wrote:
A couple of you have questioned the internet petition ...

Vinnie, check your meds. HTH HAND

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. I'm
bored. I go back to work on Monday. I am so sick of hearing this
"we're all doomed" bull**** especially from corrupt, dishonest and
greedy charlatans. As I have said before, I went to school with Al
Gore - I detest the man. He'll take anyone's money, He's no scientist,
he has no scientific talent and he has shown a propensity to lie about
everything - Far more than Bush. Most people don't realize that if
Clinton/Gore had done their job, World Trade Ctr attack 1- 9/11 would
not have happened, Enron, World Com (who ran the SEC) etc would not
have happened. Simple facts - They ****ed it all up with incompetent
neglect and NOW they want to give Gore the keys to the Big Car. Jesus,
Christ! Yeah I need meds - an overdose of cyanide.

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.

Good for you. I agree that there's a lot of BS and scare-mongering, but
you do seem a bit OTT.

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.


Good for you. I agree that there's a lot of BS and scare-mongering, but
you do seem a bit OTT.

//Walt

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.


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.
Tell me how long we you in the 5th grade 2,3 years tops.

On Dec 13, 11:01 am, Doofus Fighter
wrote:
A couple of you have questioned the internet petition I presented
claiming it's a fraud. I'm reminded of the Goracle's consensus list
which included a large number of non-scientists and scientists who
asked that their names be removed but weren't. Now we're hearing of
deliberate data manipulation by pro CO2'ers - the very same charges
were leveled at dissenters a while back. Do you possibly think that
intellectual dishonesty is uniformly owned by only one side especially
when money is involved? Gee, I'm reminded of all the ominous forecasts
we were getting about the Ozone layer. What about that? Consensus,
historically, does not prove anything - In the 19th century, consensus
said disease was spread by night vapors. For years we have heard that
egg yokes/cholesterol were bad for your health. Real Estate is a great
investment. In the 1970's, we were entering a new ice age.

I would also like to point out, that two people in particular -
Richard Henry and Ted Waldron seem to have a real problem with
dissenting points of view. Bear in mind that (they call me crazy) but
I haven't exhibited the aberrant behavior of deliberately provoking
Scott Abraham by calling him at home or taking him to court (and
losing - not to mention getting a police officer involved in real life
in order to prevent violence over the internet). You can take what I
provide and do with it what you want - but bear in mind that
significant dissension does exist about CO2 being the primary cause of
global warming. Critics argue that one of my sources WSJ is biased.
Well the NYT, Boston Globe are not biased. It is no accident that the
WSJ is written to the highest level of education of all the major
periodicals. The NYT a big proponent has severe financial difficulties
and they have been very embarrassed by a rash (shall we say serious
episodes of poor judgement). The quality of media coverage has to be
suspect.

My Uncle who recently retired from UNC-Medical School (He had a
million dollar grant- by the way - you should have seen all those
academics and their political infighting to secure it after he left),
told me two years ago that People lived their longest by not smoking/
drinking and staying the hell away from doctors. He said that the
human body is a extraordinarily complex mechanism and man's
intervention attempts are crude and often counterproductive.

He's absolutely right - medicines are often given to counteract the
side-effects of other medicines often with catastrophic effects. I've
had many patients on 15-20 different meds. I could give numerous
examples such as blood glucose control but you can look this stuff
up. The fact is that climate is at least as complex as bodily
functions (probably more - lots more). Numerous examples exist of
man's attempts to alter nature have all been wrought with side-
effects. Examples - Dams, Levies, What about that New Mexico fire
debacle a few years ago? that man-made desert lake suffering from
salinity toxicity in Southern California, farming practices in the
early 20th century, Africanized Honey Bees, the list goes on. As has
been pointed out, several people who were screaming about Global
Cooling 30 years ago have reversed their position - being as convinced
then about their position then as they are now. Interestingly, many
greens after having actively rejecting nuclear power facilities over
the years now see that as a solution. If we had taken a more pragmatic
stance about the eco-lobby, those plants might have been planned,
built and on-line reducing our need for coal/petroleum. They were in
error then what about now? Without direct causation (only correlation
and there is growing questions about what has come first chicken/egg)
being proven by CO2 increases, the CO2 eco-movement wants to sacrifice
(not necessarily in this order of importance - national economies,
reproductive freedom, how we live -(imagine living and working in
Florida w/o any A/C) etc. etc. While the so-called leadership flies in
private jets, makes millions off of scaring us hoping that we will
give up our right of self-governance to allow them to take charge.
These pundits have more often than not been wrong in the past,
horribly wrong - Not one of Paul Ehrlich's 1969 assertions in
Scientific American have come true. They can't even agree on the
predictions and yet we are going to forego 30% of our GDP for dubious/
miniscule results while many of the biggest polluters have no
restrictions at all (By the way not one country has made any Kyoto
benchmarks - I'd say that not one has actually decreased CO2
production but that might be an overreach). This agreement hasn't
worked, hasn't provided a workable framework and will never work - yet
they want to build on it. The CO2 people know it hasn't worked yet
they still promote it. Why is that? Is it just ****ing in the wind? Do
they know it's a sham? Who's right - We're in a cycle and it will
change. It's cyclical (astro-time) unrelated to CO2 and there is
nothing we can do about it (I personally think that it's this last one
but people throughout history have been unable to comprehend that they
are not the center of the universe)?

We should listen to the debate without political and economic agendas,
make up our own minds and proceed accordingly. Those that attempt to
belittle dissension and avoid the discussion should be shunned.

Read the material, do your own research, make up your own mind.

I have. You have misstated my stance on this issue pretty badly in
your recent postings. One thing I have learned is to ignore articles
whose main theme is that AGW is a fraud because Al Gore is a hypocrite
or becuase the media exaggerates things (such as the media-created
fluster over the "coming ice age" in the 70's).

Al Gore is not the issue.

The media is not the issue.

In article
,
Doofus Fighter wrote:

I would also like to point out, that two people in particular -
Richard Henry and Ted Waldron seem to have a real problem with
dissenting points of view.

I don't have a problem with dissenting points of view. I have a
problem with idiotic points of view. AGW contrarians have lost in the
scientific arena many years ago, so their only avenue now is the PR
arena. AGW Contrarians aren't interested in pursuing knowledge about
AGW or Climate Change in general, but to raise doubt and muddle the
debate, those are more political and legal tactics than scientific
methods. Pretty much all the AGW contrarians have some connection to
think tanks that get much of their money from the Energy Industries, or
Lobbying Firms with connection to the Energy Industries. Tech Central
Station was started by the lobbying firm DCI Group.

Four of the contrarian "scientists" on John Stossel's piece on AGW
for example, are either not scientists anymore, are really off the deep
end, like Roy Spencer, or connected to think thanks that are heavily
funded by the Petroleum industry, like Heartland Institute, George C.
Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute,
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy,Natural Resources
Stewardship Project.

You are an idiot, Vinnie, if you actually believed the garbage you have
cited as "evidence" that AGW is still not proven. You are also an idiot
for thinking you can pull that **** here, or you think you are coming
across as persuasive.

This article gives a short history about how the thinking on AGW has
evolved and the difference between scientific findings and the political
battle.

http://tinyurl.com/aywxj

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!

--
Cheers, Bev
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Just as you cannot explain snow to a summer insect, so also you cannot
explain ski resorts to someone who walks uphill willingly. --ErikL

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
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.
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.
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?

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.