[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- authfriend wrote: --- Gillam wrote: Maybe God needs time to pack. God has *baggage*?? I should think if anyone were nonattached, it would be God. (chuckle) Read any Old Testament lately? If there is a role model for the abusive, obsessive neurotic, it's God. Just look at what He does to the people who don't worship him the way he wants them to. :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong(??) on consensus says MIT prof-erectioner(...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/3/06 12:30:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where is all of this electricity going to come from? Did you know that an enormous amount of electricity is lost, in thin air, just in the transmission from power station along the power line grid, before anybody uses it? Hydrogen is creeping up on the inside lane. Google for Stanley Meyer, Linnard Griffin, Andrija Puharich. Some new ideas, some old. The Eldridge patent for striking an arc under water and getting H2 and CO expired in the last year of WW1. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
Read any Old Testament lately? If there is a role model for the abusive, obsessive neurotic, it's God. Just look at what He does to the people who don't worship him the way he wants them to. :-) I am always amazed when the bible is held up as a moral standard to follow and to expose to children. It makes me think, have you actually read that book? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- authfriend wrote: --- Gillam wrote: Maybe God needs time to pack. God has *baggage*?? I should think if anyone were nonattached, it would be God. (chuckle) Read any Old Testament lately? If there is a role model for the abusive, obsessive neurotic, it's God. Just look at what He does to the people who don't worship him the way he wants them to. :-) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong(??) on consensus says MIT prof-erectioner(...
In a message dated 7/4/06 9:35:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED].. wrote: In a message dated 7/3/06 12:30:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED].. writes: Where is all of this electricity going to come from? Did you know that an enormous amount of electricity is lost, in thin air, just in the transmission from power station along the power line grid, before anybody uses it?Hydrogen is creeping up on the inside lane. Googlefor Stanley Meyer, Linnard Griffin, Andrija Puharich.Some new ideas, some old. The Eldridge patent forstriking an arc under water and getting H2 and COexpired in the last year of WW1. Exactly, it's a little while down the road though, not that far off. But you can't stop what we are doing, use of fossil fuels, until we have something economically feasible enough to replace it. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read any Old Testament lately? If there is a role model for the abusive, obsessive neurotic, it's God. Just look at what He does to the people who don't worship him the way he wants them to. :-) I am always amazed when the bible is held up as a moral standard to follow and to expose to children. It makes me think, have you actually read that book? And yet the Jews, whose scripture it is (presumably you're referring to the Hebrew Scriptures here), have historically been a profoundly moral people (present government of Israel excepted). To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
In a message dated 7/4/06 11:04:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And yet the Jews, whose scripture it is (presumablyyou're referring to the Hebrew Scriptures here), havehistorically been a profoundly moral people (presentgovernment of Israel excepted). Judy , do you really believe the present Israeli government is immoral or lacking anymore morals than previous Israeli governments, including biblical governments? __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/4/06 11:04:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And yet the Jews, whose scripture it is (presumably you're referring to the Hebrew Scriptures here), have historically been a profoundly moral people (present government of Israel excepted). Judy , do you really believe the present Israeli government is immoral Yes. or lacking anymore morals than previous Israeli governments, I'm not a student of Israeli history. What it's doing now is wrong. including biblical governments? Non sequitur. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong(??) on consensus says MIT prof-erectioner(...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/4/06 9:35:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , MDixon6569@, MDix In a message dated 7/3/06 12:30:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, babajii_99@ babajii_99 Where is all of this electricity going to come from? Did you know that an enormous amount of electricity is lost, in thin air, just in the transmission from power station along the power line grid, before anybody uses it? Hydrogen is creeping up on the inside lane. Google for Stanley Meyer, Linnard Griffin, Andrija Puharich. Some new ideas, some old. The Eldridge patent for striking an arc under water and getting H2 and CO expired in the last year of WW1. Exactly, it's a little while down the road though, not that far off. But you can't stop what we are doing, use of fossil fuels, until we have something economically feasible enough to replace it. The solution will lie with the free market. That's why I am always admonishing people here that it is THEY that are responsible for global warming if they continue to consume gasoline themselves, through their cars and plane tickets. Exxon doesn't consume very much oil themselves; it is their CUSTOMERS who do. And their customers are...YOU. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong(??) on consensus says MIT prof-erectioner(...
shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/4/06 9:35:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , MDixon6569@, MDix In a message dated 7/3/06 12:30:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, babajii_99@ babajii_99 Where is all of this electricity going to come from? Did you know that an enormous amount of electricity is lost, in thin air, just in the transmission from power station along the power line grid, before anybody uses it? Hydrogen is creeping up on the inside lane. Google for Stanley Meyer, Linnard Griffin, Andrija Puharich. Some new ideas, some old. The Eldridge patent for striking an arc under water and getting H2 and CO expired in the last year of WW1. Exactly, it's a little while down the road though, not that far off. But you can't stop what we are doing, use of fossil fuels, until we have something economically feasible enough to replace it. The solution will lie with the free market. That's why I am always admonishing people here that it is THEY that are responsible for global warming if they continue to consume gasoline themselves, through their cars and plane tickets. Exxon doesn't consume very much oil themselves; it is their CUSTOMERS who do. And their customers are...YOU. 1. The human race has had autonomous transportation for thousands of years either by: foot, horseback or carriage. You are not going to change the mindset overnight. 2. Therefore what we need to do is deprogram the trend towards the ownership of larger vehicles. During the energy crisis of the 1970's smaller cars caught on but then there was the Volvo trend where the Volvo was thought to be a safer well built car to drive because it would protect them better. Car companies jumped on that bandwagon and went back to building bigger cars. The hippie wives of the 70's became middle class soccer moms of the 80's and 90's and wanted safer vans to haul their offspring to practice and games. Hence the car companies responded with bigger vans and particularly SUVs. 3. Wouldn't it have been better if instead of a knee jerk reaction people sat and thought out the problem more carefully. Large SUVs should not have received the tax exemption they got which made them more attractive. The economics of the soccer mom mentality needed to be looked at more carefully. Perhaps even Americas over the top obssession with sports needed to be looked at which seems to assume every kid will become a sports star and retire their parents. This is of course unrealistic. 4. Perhaps like we have anti-smoking commercials we need public service commercials that educate the public to the expense of continuing to operate big vehicles and what they do to the environment. Unfortunately car dealers and salespeople seem to have carny mentality. Did you know it was the Dodge brothers who foisted this style of car dealing on us? 5. And of course we now have more behemoth trucks on the highways since they have taken over from rail shipping. Truckers hate car and SUV drivers. But we don't have the funds to do truck lanes anymore which would help. So everyone thinks a bigger car will help in a collision with a Mack Truck though probably nothing will except another Mack Truck (oops, don't give them ideas). 6. What we need of course are smaller more practical vehicles and more practical and useful mass transit. Last week we had spare the air days in California. Mass transit was free but many found that it was largely impractical. A commute that took 1 hour or less by car wound up taking two hours by mass transit. In the San Francisco Bay Area you have BART which is an expensive rail based system. It is often crowded and serves a limited area. In San Jose their light rail system is less expensive to maintain and often built on abandoned rail lines. Portland, Oregon also has a successful light rail system. We need more of these and less BARTs. 7. It's going to be difficult to implement any kind of solution as the status quo is only interested in their preservation and not in improving life on this planet. 8. And of course the root of the problem *is* overpopulation. If everyone on the planet wanted to have the US standard of living it would require 4 planet earth's to provide those resources. Houston, we have a problem... We need need to reduce the population but in a humane way, not by war, not by man made diseases, but by rational means. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/2/06 6:36:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How much stock does he own in oil companies? Better yet, how much does Gore own? Cheney owns 600,000+ stock options from Halliburton, (worth about $45 million) things, so we know why he is keeping his mouth shut on this...and the stock price has tripled since he began slaughtering Iraqis- Good investment, Mr. Vice President! To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip And how does Lindzen's getting paid for his consulting services change the reality or unreality of what he says? How does the attention and political agenda of Al Gore change the reality or unreality of what he says? Why don't you address what he says and the logic and rationality of what he says instead of trying to show that the guy makes a living? None of us here has anything remotely approaching the expertise to address the reality or unreality of what either he or Al Gore has said, of course. The only possible way for the layperson to evaluate the various claims is to determine cui bono, who benefits from promoting which point of view. ...but that wasn't your position with Michael Creighten, Judy. A multimillionaire many, many times over, Creighten has absolutely NOTHING to gain from opposing global warming hype...indeed, he probably LOSES money by talking about it. Well, actually he has most likely MADE money from the sales of State of Fear. But with an apparently independent nonexpert, such as Crichton or Al Gore, we evaluate their views by what the independent experts have to say about those views. No, your position with Creighten -- an MD, Harvard graduate and recognized as a scientist by most credible people -- was that he wasn't a scientist, so we had to ignore him. Crichton is most certainly *not* a scientist, and most credible people recognize that; he admits it himself. You're well aware of this, since we went over it in some detail on alt.m.t awhile back. An MD degree obtained, what, 35 years ago (even if he had actually used it), plus a BA degree from Harvard, do not qualify him as a climate scientist. duh The bio on his own Web site begins: After graduating from the Harvard Medical School, Michael Crichton embarked on a career as a writer and filmmaker. http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/biography.html That pretty much says it all. But I never said we had to ignore him, any more than we have to ignore Al Gore because he isn't a scientist. To the contrary, unlike you, I went to the trouble to look up what independent expert climatologists had to say about Crichton's views. They tore him apart: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 But they support Al Gore's views: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores- movie/#more-299 http://tinyurl.com/gke7d And with the Oregon Petition -- that list signed by about 18,000 scientists opposing the claims about global warming -- well, hey, they don't have anything to gain by opposing global warming, do they? Actually we have no idea. We'd have to look at each one. And yet you found some other reason to dismiss them. Right. Here's a good summary from Wikipedia: Text The principal text of the petition reads: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. The text also states, Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly. This was based on comparison of satellite and balloon data from 1979-99. At the time, this was not true: the data showed warming (+0.058 °C/decade). Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows even more warming. See historical temperature record and satellite temperature measurements [link]. Criticism The petition and its covering letter have been criticised [1]. The text of the petition is often misrepresented by its proponents as, for example, over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis [2] whereas the petition itself only speaks of catastrophic warming. Further, the covering letter, written in the style of a contribution to PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences], sent with the petition was strongly criticised as designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review, (Raymond Pierrehumbert,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
Thanks for this. It's disconcerting to see an 11-year-old article that describes a situation as if it were today. Nothing's changed. --- authfriend wrote: Excerpts from THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial by Ross Gelbspan, from Harper's magazine, December 1995 For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among otherswho have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. ... But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth-seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first timeLindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC http://dieoff.org/page82.htm Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for this. It's disconcerting to see an 11-year-old article that describes a situation as if it were today. Nothing's changed. Until the global warming crisis is validated by disaster, there will always be a few die-hard skeptics who refuse to wake up and smell the coffee (or who have agreed to take sleeping pills from their energy-company funders). But they are growing fewer as more and more evidence comes out. What needs to change is the media. Until the media stops quoting those diehard few for balance, as if their point of view was equally valid, the faux controversy will appear to continue. --- authfriend wrote: Excerpts from THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial by Ross Gelbspan, from Harper's magazine, December 1995 snip Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
In a message dated 7/3/06 1:38:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How much stock does he own in oil companies? Better yet, how much does Gore own?Cheney owns 600,000+ stock options from Halliburton, (worth about $45 million) things, so we know why he is keeping his mouth shut on this...and the stock price has tripled since he began slaughtering Iraqis- Good investment, Mr. Vice President! Yes, but Cheney isn't whining about the combustion engine, Gore is. Dang, tripled?! Wished I would have bought some Haliburton. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/3/06 1:38:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How much stock does he own in oil companies? Better yet, how much does Gore own? Cheney owns 600,000+ stock options from Halliburton, (worth about $45 million) things, so we know why he is keeping his mouth shut on this...and the stock price has tripled since he began slaughtering Iraqis- Good investment, Mr. Vice President! Yes, but Cheney isn't whining about the combustion engine Of course he isn't. That's the *point*. It would be contrary to his financial interests to do so. As Jim says re Halliburton, that's why he is keeping his mouth shut. What are you missing here?? , Gore is. Dang, tripled?! Wished I would have bought some Haliburton. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
In a message dated 7/3/06 9:05:52 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course he isn't. That's the *point*. It would becontrary to his financial interests to do so. As Jimsays re Halliburton, that's why he is keeping his mouthshut.What are you missing here??, Gore is. Dang, tripled?! Wished I would have bought some Haliburton. We were expressing different points, obviously. Mine was that Gore complains about Global warming and the combustion engine while owning a lot of oil company stocks. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
Thoughts interleaved below. --- authfriend wrote: Until the global warming crisis is validated by disaster, there will always be a few die-hard skeptics who refuse to wake up. ... And isn't crisis the only thing that really precipitates change? I know in my life, I keep trying to perpetuate old modes of living until they become absolutely untenable. It's like hitting bottom in the 12-step world, or that statement Maharishi makes in his Gita commentary about God only reappearing when life on Earth can get no more wicked. What needs to change is the media. Until the media stops quoting those diehard few for balance, as if their point of view was equally valid, the faux controversy will appear to continue. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that within a week of An Inconvenient Truth coming to theaters, I noted a change in reporting. I seem to recall one story that took man-made climate change as the given, and barely mentioned the naysayers in passing. It would be interesting to check in with the journalism reviews in a few months or a year to see if they track media treatment of the story. --- authfriend wrote: Excerpts from THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial by Ross Gelbspan, from Harper's magazine, December 1995 snip http://dieoff.org/page82.htm Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/3/06 9:05:52 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course he isn't. That's the *point*. It would be contrary to his financial interests to do so. As Jim says re Halliburton, that's why he is keeping his mouth shut. What are you missing here?? , Gore is. Dang, tripled?! Wished I would have bought some Haliburton. We were expressing different points, obviously. Mine was that Gore complains about Global warming and the combustion engine while owning a lot of oil company stocks. Oh, I see. But he *doesn't* own oil company stocks-- or at least he didn't until after his mother died in December 2004, assuming she left her trust from Al Gore Sr. to her son. I don't know whether she did leave the stocks to him, or if she did, what he's done with them. The story that Gore Jr. owned lots of oil company stock is just another of those bogus right-wing tales (actually Nader told it as well during the 2000 campaign). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
Oil and gas companies may be good investments in the short term, but won't they be less and less profitable as resources deplete? Seems to me a publicly traded exterminator company would be the place to invest. Bugs are the real winners in global warming. Cold-form steel construction, also known as light guage steel framing, should grow. (It's stronger than wood, which makes it better in severe climates, and it's impervious to termites.) I've been thinking global warming will engender a huge new industry around managing and surviving the crisis. Where should people live and invest? What career fields will flourish? Lots of changes, which means lots of opportunities to make money. --- authfriend wrote: --- MDixon6569@ wrote: We were expressing different points, obviously. Mine was that Gore complains about Global warming and the combustion engine while owning a lot of oil company stocks. Oh, I see. But he *doesn't* own oil company stocks-- or at least he didn't until after his mother died in December 2004, assuming she left her trust from Al Gore Sr. to her son. I don't know whether she did leave the stocks to him, or if she did, what he's done with them. The story that Gore Jr. owned lots of oil company stock is just another of those bogus right-wing tales (actually Nader told it as well during the 2000 campaign). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oil and gas companies may be good investments in the short term, but won't they be less and less profitable as resources deplete? Seems to me a publicly traded exterminator company would be the place to invest. Bugs are the real winners in global warming. Cold-form steel construction, also known as light guage steel framing, should grow. (It's stronger than wood, which makes it better in severe climates, and it's impervious to termites.) I've been thinking global warming will engender a huge new industry around managing and surviving the crisis. Where should people live and invest? What career fields will flourish? Lots of changes, which means lots of opportunities to make money. My sister recently suggested that disaster-recovery companies, which are growing rapidly (they do post- disaster cleanup, for individuals and other entities), would be a good investment. And all your standard survivalist-supply companies, natch. Plus gun manufacturers, I'm afraid. And gold, of course. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thoughts interleaved below. --- authfriend wrote: Until the global warming crisis is validated by disaster, there will always be a few die-hard skeptics who refuse to wake up. ... And isn't crisis the only thing that really precipitates change? I know in my life, I keep trying to perpetuate old modes of living until they become absolutely untenable. It's like hitting bottom in the 12-step world, or that statement Maharishi makes in his Gita commentary about God only reappearing when life on Earth can get no more wicked. Would that mean that good people like Al Gore and Warren Buffett/Bill Gates are keeping God from reappearing? What needs to change is the media. Until the media stops quoting those diehard few for balance, as if their point of view was equally valid, the faux controversy will appear to continue. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that within a week of An Inconvenient Truth coming to theaters, I noted a change in reporting. I seem to recall one story that took man-made climate change as the given, and barely mentioned the naysayers in passing. Could well be, but now there seems to be something of a backlash. It would be interesting to check in with the journalism reviews in a few months or a year to see if they track media treatment of the story. Indeed. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip And how does Lindzen's getting paid for his consulting services change the reality or unreality of what he says? How does the attention and political agenda of Al Gore change the reality or unreality of what he says? Why don't you address what he says and the logic and rationality of what he says instead of trying to show that the guy makes a living? None of us here has anything remotely approaching the expertise to address the reality or unreality of what either he or Al Gore has said, of course. The only possible way for the layperson to evaluate the various claims is to determine cui bono, who benefits from promoting which point of view. ...but that wasn't your position with Michael Creighten, Judy. A multimillionaire many, many times over, Creighten has absolutely NOTHING to gain from opposing global warming hype...indeed, he probably LOSES money by talking about it. Well, actually he has most likely MADE money from the sales of State of Fear. But with an apparently independent nonexpert, such as Crichton or Al Gore, we evaluate their views by what the independent experts have to say about those views. ...yet when I publish those views, you find some other way to diminish their credibility, such as oh, they get money from oil companies. That's why I keep coming back to: okay, then let's just stick to the facts these people bring out and not the reputations or where they get the money from. No, your position with Creighten -- an MD, Harvard graduate and recognized as a scientist by most credible people -- was that he wasn't a scientist, so we had to ignore him. Crichton is most certainly *not* a scientist, and most credible people recognize that; he admits it himself. You're well aware of this, since we went over it in some detail on alt.m.t awhile back. An MD degree obtained, what, 35 years ago (even if he had actually used it), plus a BA degree from Harvard, do not qualify him as a climate scientist. duh ...it's a heck of alot more than Gore has, yet you harp on it without harping on Gore's lack of qualifications. The bio on his own Web site begins: After graduating from the Harvard Medical School, Michael Crichton embarked on a career as a writer and filmmaker. http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/biography.html That pretty much says it all. But I never said we had to ignore him, any more than we have to ignore Al Gore because he isn't a scientist. To the contrary, unlike you, I went to the trouble to look up what independent expert climatologists had to say about Crichton's views. independent expert climatologists...and I'm sure if we were to look at their agendas or who pays them we'll find something to hang on them. The bottom line, Judy, is if you truly believe global warming is the crisis that it is, you will have to be consistent in your personal life and stop driving cars and taking planes and doing any activity that adds to global warming. Are you ready to do that? They tore him apart: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 But they support Al Gore's views: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores- movie/#more-299 http://tinyurl.com/gke7d And with the Oregon Petition -- that list signed by about 18,000 scientists opposing the claims about global warming -- well, hey, they don't have anything to gain by opposing global warming, do they? Actually we have no idea. We'd have to look at each one. And yet you found some other reason to dismiss them. Right. Here's a good summary from Wikipedia: Text The principal text of the petition reads: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. The text also states, Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
If global warming is as horrible as you believe it to be, Judy, then I expect you to IMMEDIATELY: 1) stop driving a car 2) stop owning a car 3) stop driving IN cars 4) stop taking airplanes, jets or otherwise. Please report back to us how you're getting on --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thoughts interleaved below. --- authfriend wrote: Until the global warming crisis is validated by disaster, there will always be a few die-hard skeptics who refuse to wake up. ... And isn't crisis the only thing that really precipitates change? I know in my life, I keep trying to perpetuate old modes of living until they become absolutely untenable. It's like hitting bottom in the 12-step world, or that statement Maharishi makes in his Gita commentary about God only reappearing when life on Earth can get no more wicked. What needs to change is the media. Until the media stops quoting those diehard few for balance, as if their point of view was equally valid, the faux controversy will appear to continue. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that within a week of An Inconvenient Truth coming to theaters, I noted a change in reporting. I seem to recall one story that took man-made climate change as the given, and barely mentioned the naysayers in passing. It would be interesting to check in with the journalism reviews in a few months or a year to see if they track media treatment of the story. --- authfriend wrote: Excerpts from THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial by Ross Gelbspan, from Harper's magazine, December 1995 snip http://dieoff.org/page82.htm Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If global warming is as horrible as you believe it to be, Judy, then I expect you to IMMEDIATELY: 1) stop driving a car 2) stop owning a car 3) stop driving IN cars 4) stop taking airplanes, jets or otherwise. Please report back to us how you're getting on snigger I don't drive, don't own a car, and don't fly--but not because of global warming. But there's no need for *anybody* to do *any* of these things, of course. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip And how does Lindzen's getting paid for his consulting services change the reality or unreality of what he says? How does the attention and political agenda of Al Gore change the reality or unreality of what he says? Why don't you address what he says and the logic and rationality of what he says instead of trying to show that the guy makes a living? None of us here has anything remotely approaching the expertise to address the reality or unreality of what either he or Al Gore has said, of course. The only possible way for the layperson to evaluate the various claims is to determine cui bono, who benefits from promoting which point of view. ...but that wasn't your position with Michael Creighten, Judy. A multimillionaire many, many times over, Creighten has absolutely NOTHING to gain from opposing global warming hype...indeed, he probably LOSES money by talking about it. Well, actually he has most likely MADE money from the sales of State of Fear. But with an apparently independent nonexpert, such as Crichton or Al Gore, we evaluate their views by what the independent experts have to say about those views. ...yet when I publish those views, you find some other way to diminish their credibility, such as oh, they get money from oil companies. Shemp, read what I wrote again. Note the word independent. If they get money from oil companies, they aren't independent. That's why I keep coming back to: okay, then let's just stick to the facts these people bring out and not the reputations or where they get the money from. Climate science is far too complicated for the layperson to have a good enough grasp of the facts to be able to evaluate the relative validity of the opposing views. No, your position with Creighten -- an MD, Harvard graduate and recognized as a scientist by most credible people -- was that he wasn't a scientist, so we had to ignore him. Crichton is most certainly *not* a scientist, and most credible people recognize that; he admits it himself. You're well aware of this, since we went over it in some detail on alt.m.t awhile back. An MD degree obtained, what, 35 years ago (even if he had actually used it), plus a BA degree from Harvard, do not qualify him as a climate scientist. duh ...it's a heck of alot more than Gore has, yet you harp on it without harping on Gore's lack of qualifications. ROTFL!! *You* claimed Crichton was a scientist. I never claimed Gore was a scientist--to the contrary, I said explicitly that he was *not* a scientist. Shemp, are you sure you don't have ADD? You really have *such* trouble keeping track of conversations. snip But I never said we had to ignore him, any more than we have to ignore Al Gore because he isn't a scientist. To the contrary, unlike you, I went to the trouble to look up what independent expert climatologists had to say about Crichton's views. independent expert climatologists...and I'm sure if we were to look at their agendas or who pays them we'll find something to hang on them. You're welcome to give it a shot. The fact is, though, the Big Money is on the side of the naysayers, not those who are warning about the global warming crisis. The bottom line, Judy, is if you truly believe global warming is the crisis that it is, you will have to be consistent in your personal life and stop driving cars and taking planes and doing any activity that adds to global warming. Are you ready to do that? No, and it isn't necessary for me to do all that to be consistent either, of course. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- authfriend wrote: My sister recently suggested that disaster-recovery companies, which are growing rapidly (they do post- disaster cleanup, for individuals and other entities), would be a good investment. Like this: www.halliburtoncontracts.com Halliburton's reputation as a disaster and conflict industry innovator will be cemented by the SurvivaBall, a one-size-fits-all solution to global warming. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bottom line, Judy, is if you truly believe global warming is the crisis that it is, you will have to be consistent in your personal life and stop driving cars and taking planes and doing any activity that adds to global warming. You continue to qualify the climate change problem in two ways. Such constant use, appears that you are using these as strawmen -- and thus playing games. I hope not. First crisis. Is a problem only a problem until it reaches a crisis statge? For example, is Social Security just fine until the checks are no longer sent? Was Hitler no problem in the 30's until he invaded Poland? It seems the hallmark of good leadership is to forsee problems as they develop and mitigate them before they reach crisis stage. Your argument about crises appears to reflect a mind thinking all is just gal'darn shucks good until the oceans rise 12 feet. And problems, prior to crisis, are always probabalistic as to the timing, duration and even potential for a crises. But everyone in the world acts under uncertainty. There are good methods to deal with decisions under uncertainty. (You like one such approach months back having to do with NO and the levees.) That approach is applicable here. If there is a 33% probability of a crises (say as indicated by a given crisis benchmark of oceans risiing 12 feet in 50 years, then what is the expected value of the crisis' impact? Its the cost 50 years out -- lets say a $100 trillion over the following 50 years to be very conservative, x 33% == 33.3 trillion, discounted back 50 years to the present. using long term growth rates as the discount rate, thats 4600 billion. Thus, if we spend less than $4600 billion today to avert a possible (33% probability) crises in 50 years, we / society is ahead of the game, its a profitable investment. Lets say we don't just want to break even on social investments, but score big. So we cut the investment threshold by 2, insuring a hugely profitable return (of avoided costs) on the investment. so about 2300 billion. Spread over 10 years, 230 billion / year or so would be a very profitable play. Over this 10 year investment horizon, the cost 50 years out, and the pobability of occurance can be adjusted appropriately. If the costs and/or probability are seen to be lower, the investments can be diminished or curtailed. And vice versa. Your other strawman is the constant use of the term global warming when the problem is global climate change. Some areas will become warmer, others cooler. Some strawmen advocates point to cooling in some areas and say ah ha, see -- no warming as if that negates the larger global climate change problem. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- authfriend wrote: --- Gillam wrote: It's like hitting bottom in the 12-step world, or that statement Maharishi makes in his Gita commentary about God only reappearing when life on Earth can get no more wicked. Would that mean that good people like Al Gore and Warren Buffett/Bill Gates are keeping God from reappearing? Well, I don't know how the mechanics work, but there seems to be some necessity for the good guys to delay the end as long as they can. It's the hold out until the cavalry arrives principle. Maybe God needs time to pack. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
More on Lindzen's piece: WSJ Hit Piece on Gore Movie Relies on Grievously Flawed Study In today's Wall Street Journal, prominent climate skeptic Richard Lindzen tries to make the case that There Is No `Consensus' On Global Warming. Most of the article is, typically, invective against Al Gore and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Lindzen does acknowledge that thousands of scientists from 120 countries have agreed, through the extraordinarily rigorous International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, that human activity is driving global warming. He also acknowledges that this consensus was recently confirmed by a report prepared for Congress by the National Academy of Scientists. Here is Lindzen's only substantive response: More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy [sic Naomi] Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words 'global climate change' produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it. Peiser's work and Lindzen's reliance on it is an embarrassment. Here's why: 1. Peizer misunderstands the point of Oreskes study. The point was not that every article about climate change explicitly endorsed the IPCC conclusions. The point is that if there was real uncertainty there would be substantive disagreement in the scientific community that would be reflected in peer reviewed literature. There wasn't. 2. Peiser didn't find any peer reviewed studies that oppose the scientific consensus. Peiser claimed that 34 papers reject or doubt the consensus view. Tim Lambert got Peiser to send him the abstracts of those 34 papers. The vast majority of these papers express no doubt whatsoever about the consensus view. Only one paper, by the Association of Petroleum Geologists, cited by Peiser actually rejects the consensus view and it does not appear to have been peer reviewed outside that Association. Peiser has admitted that his work included errors. But ultimately, it doesn't make a difference. The point of activity like this isn't to be right, it's simply to provide fodder to people like Lindzen to create the appearance of uncertainty. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wsj-gore/ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- authfriend wrote: My sister recently suggested that disaster-recovery companies, which are growing rapidly (they do post- disaster cleanup, for individuals and other entities), would be a good investment. Like this: www.halliburtoncontracts.com Halliburton's reputation as a disaster and conflict industry innovator will be cemented by the SurvivaBall, a one-size-fits-all solution to global warming. Wow. I can't tell whether that site is legit or a very subtle satire. (My sister didn't have Halliburton in mind, by the way, she was thinking of smaller companies that operate locally via franchise to clean out flooded basements, pick up debris, etc.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- authfriend wrote: --- Gillam wrote: It's like hitting bottom in the 12-step world, or that statement Maharishi makes in his Gita commentary about God only reappearing when life on Earth can get no more wicked. Would that mean that good people like Al Gore and Warren Buffett/Bill Gates are keeping God from reappearing? Well, I don't know how the mechanics work, but there seems to be some necessity for the good guys to delay the end as long as they can. It's the hold out until the cavalry arrives principle. Maybe God needs time to pack. God has *baggage*?? I should think if anyone were nonattached, it would be God. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: The bottom line, Judy, is if you truly believe global warming is the crisis that it is, you will have to be consistent in your personal life and stop driving cars and taking planes and doing any activity that adds to global warming. You continue to qualify the climate change problem in two ways. Such constant use, appears that you are using these as strawmen -- and thus playing games. I hope not. First crisis. Is a problem only a problem until it reaches a crisis statge? For example, is Social Security just fine until the checks are no longer sent? Was Hitler no problem in the 30's until he invaded Poland? It seems the hallmark of good leadership is to forsee problems as they develop and mitigate them before they reach crisis stage. I totally agree. That's why it's important to weigh the costs of going down the Kyoto road or whatever it is that the Gore-ists want us to do. I contend that the costs to tryng to prevent global warming far, far outweigh the costs of doing nothing. Your argument about crises appears to reflect a mind thinking all is just gal'darn shucks good until the oceans rise 12 feet. And problems, prior to crisis, are always probabalistic as to the timing, duration and even potential for a crises. But everyone in the world acts under uncertainty. There are good methods to deal with decisions under uncertainty. (You like one such approach months back having to do with NO and the levees.) That approach is applicable here. If there is a 33% probability of a crises (say as indicated by a given crisis benchmark of oceans risiing 12 feet in 50 years, then what is the expected value of the crisis' impact? Its the cost 50 years out -- lets say a $100 trillion over the following 50 years to be very conservative, x 33% == 33.3 trillion, discounted back 50 years to the present. using long term growth rates as the discount rate, thats 4600 billion. Thus, if we spend less than $4600 billion today to avert a possible (33% probability) crises in 50 years, we / society is ahead of the game, its a profitable investment. Lets say we don't just want to break even on social investments, but score big. So we cut the investment threshold by 2, insuring a hugely profitable return (of avoided costs) on the investment. so about 2300 billion. Spread over 10 years, 230 billion / year or so would be a very profitable play. Over this 10 year investment horizon, the cost 50 years out, and the pobability of occurance can be adjusted appropriately. If the costs and/or probability are seen to be lower, the investments can be diminished or curtailed. And vice versa. Then let's look at the opportunity costs to going the Kyoto route or whatever it is that the pro-global warming (or whatever you want to call it) want us to do. It's analogous to those that advocate organic gardening at the cost of 100 million who will die without the benefit of fertilizer and all that. Your other strawman is the constant use of the term global warming when the problem is global climate change. Some areas will become warmer, others cooler. Some strawmen advocates point to cooling in some areas and say ah ha, see -- no warming as if that negates the larger global climate change problem. The world and the universe are in constant change and constant flux. I suspect that 99.9% of the changes everyone is up in arms about are natural changes and not due to the burning of fossil fuels. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
In a message dated 7/3/06 9:58:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oil and gas companies may be good investments in the short term, but won't they be less and less profitable as resources deplete?Seems to me a publicly traded exterminator company would be the place to invest. Bugs are the real winners in global warming.Cold-form steel construction, also known aslight guage steel framing, should grow. (It'sstronger than wood, which makes it betterin severe climates, and it's impervious to termites.)I've been thinking global warming will engendera huge new industry around managing and surviving the crisis. Where should people liveand invest? What career fields will flourish? Lotsof changes, which means lots of opportunitiesto make money. Investmentin oil companies will probably be a good investment just about anytime unless some big break through in technology comes along that the oil companies have not invested in. Exxon will probably always be in the energy business. New useful technologies always create changes with lots of opportunities. Horseless carriages sure did a number on the horse breeding business as well as buggy building industry. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong(??) on consensus says MIT prof-erectioner(...
In a message dated 7/3/06 12:30:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, did you know we could have had electric cars, like ten years ago;The technology is there,Unfornately it would put filling stations and repair stations out of business, you see;Because an electric car won't need as many repairs at all.And you plug it in your wall at home; so the Saudi/Bush group Where is all of this electricity going to come from? Did you know that an enormous amount of electricity is lost, in thin air,just in the transmission from power station along the power line grid, before anybody uses it? If we weren't burning the oil in our cars as gasoline, we would be burning it to generate electricity to charge those cars up at night. Too bad we don't have more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
In a message dated 7/3/06 12:33:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (My sister didn't have Halliburton in mind, by theway, she was thinking of smaller companies thatoperate locally via franchise to clean out floodedbasements, pick up debris, etc.) A friend of mine and I thought it would be kool to invent giant heavy duty zip lock baggies that you can put furniture, electronics and other things in for people that live in flood plains. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
Some more related items Peiser admits to making a mistake Category: Global Warming Posted on: March 22, 2006 10:45 AM, by Tim Lambert Last year Benny Peiser claimed that on a literature search he found 34 papers reject or doubt anthropgenic global warming. I posted the abstracts and it's very obvious that he misclassified most of the papers. Peiser left several comments on that post, but could not bring himself to admit that he had made mistakes. Now Sylvia S Tognetti has spotted that Peiser has finally admitted to making mistakes: I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay. Better late than never, I guess. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/03/peiser_admits_to_making_a_mist.php http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/lindzen_in_wsj.php Lindzen in WSJ Category: Global Warming Posted on: June 26, 2006 3:18 PM, by Tim Lambert Judd Legum has already debunked Richard Lindzen's repetition of Benny Peiser's discredited study, but I want to add one point. Lindzen wrote: More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words global climate change produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it. * * Note that he got her name wrong (it's Naomi), what she said she'd found (which was that 75% implicitly or explicitly accept the consensus) and what the corresponding claim by Peiser was (that only one third of the papers accepted the consensus). It seems likely that he never checked what Oreskes actually wrote and relied on a second or third hand account. Lindzen also writes: A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. Lindzen concedes that warming is occurring, but on the question of human influences argues that there has been a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. One of the examples of this repetition that Lindzen gives is the 2001 NAS panel report which unequivocally stated: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. Lindzen does not mention that he was one of the authors of this report. He says one thing in a scientific report and another thing in an op-ed. Lindzen continues: Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: Case closed. What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open. The report absolutely does not say that satellite data shows no warming since 1979. It states: For observations during the satellite era (1979 onwards), the most recent versions of all available data sets show that both the low and mid troposphere have warmed. As for the conflict between models and observations, the report finds there is no such conflict: The most recent climate model simulations give a range of results for changes in global-average temperature. Some models show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface, while a slightly smaller number of simulations show the opposite behavior. There is no fundamental inconsistency among these model results and observations at the global scale. Comments Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | June 26, 2006 04:52 PM I wonder what Lindzen means by selective corrections to the atmospheric data. Is he saying that he does not accept the corrections that Spencer and Christy, both clearly on the skeptical side on climate change, have admitted need to be implemented after others showed them the errors that they had made? I read the entire op-ed piece and also noticed that Lindzen
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- authfriend wrote: --- Gillam wrote: Maybe God needs time to pack. God has *baggage*?? I should think if anyone were nonattached, it would be God. (chuckle) Hmm. Yeah. Maybe He packs gifts. You know - hostess gifts, like when you visit friends. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong(??) on consensus says MIT prof-erectioner(...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/3/06 12:30:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, did you know we could have had electric cars, like ten years ago; The technology is there, Unfornately it would put filling stations and repair stations out of business, you see; Because an electric car won't need as many repairs at all. And you plug it in your wall at home; so the Saudi/Bush group Where is all of this electricity going to come from? Did you know that an enormous amount of electricity is lost, in thin air, just in the transmission from power station along the power line grid, before anybody uses it? If we weren't burning the oil in our cars as gasoline, we would be burning it to generate electricity to charge those cars up at night. Too bad we don't have more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. ++ Localized solar and wind generating could fill some of the need without the future problems provided by atomic power. Some of us on my street never were hooked to the grid so I do believe it works on a small scale. N. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong(??) on consensus says MIT prof-erectioner(...
In a message dated 7/3/06 8:37:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ++ Localized solar and wind generating could fill some of the need without the future problems provided by atomic power.Some of us on my street never were hooked to the grid so I do believe it works on a small scale. N. Yeah, but not off Nantucket __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How much stock does he own in oil companies? shempmcgurk wrote: Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no consensus on global warming. Bush's EPA appears to be worried: http://tinyurl.com/kdcl Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: How much stock does he own in oil companies? shempmcgurk wrote: Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no consensus on global warming. Bush's EPA appears to be worried: http://tinyurl.com/kdcl What the frick? I tested that URL before I pasted it. http://tinyurl.com/kdcl7 Doh. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no consensus on global warming. BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT (His piece is from the Wall Street Journal, BTW.) Excerpts from THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial by Ross Gelbspan, from Harper's magazine, December 1995 For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among otherswho have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skepticsLindzen, Michaels, and Ballingwere hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. An especially aggressive industry player, Western Fuels was quite candid about its strategy in two annual reports: [T]here has been a close to universal impulse in the trade association community here in Washington to concede the scientific premise of global warming . . . while arguing over policy prescriptions that would be the least disruptive to our economy We have disagreed, and do disagree, with this strategy. When [the climate change] controversy first erupted . . . scientists were found who are skeptical about much of what seemed generally accepted about the potential for climate change. Among them were Michaels, Balling, and S. Fred Singer But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth-seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first timeLindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC http://dieoff.org/page82.htm Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no consensus on global warming. BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT (His piece is from the Wall Street Journal, BTW.) Excerpts from THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial by Ross Gelbspan, from Harper's magazine, December 1995 For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among otherswho have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skepticsLindzen, Michaels, and Ballingwere hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. An especially aggressive industry player, Western Fuels was quite candid about its strategy in two annual reports: [T]here has been a close to universal impulse in the trade association community here in Washington to concede the scientific premise of global warming . . . while arguing over policy prescriptions that would be the least disruptive to our economy We have disagreed, and do disagree, with this strategy. When [the climate change] controversy first erupted . . . scientists were found who are skeptical about much of what seemed generally accepted about the potential for climate change. Among them were Michaels, Balling, and S. Fred Singer But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth- seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first timeLindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC http://dieoff.org/page82.htm And how does Lindzen's getting paid for his consulting services change the reality or unreality of what he says? How does the attention and political agenda of Al Gore change the reality or unreality of what he says? Why don't you address what he says and the logic and rationality of what he says instead of trying to show that the guy makes a living? Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and Bill Clinton wouldn't even look in the direction of an offer of $2,500 a day... Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no consensus on global warming. BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT (His piece is from the Wall Street Journal, BTW.) Excerpts from THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial by Ross Gelbspan, from Harper's magazine, December 1995 For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among otherswho have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skepticsLindzen, Michaels, and Ballingwere hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. An especially aggressive industry player, Western Fuels was quite candid about its strategy in two annual reports: [T]here has been a close to universal impulse in the trade association community here in Washington to concede the scientific premise of global warming . . . while arguing over policy prescriptions that would be the least disruptive to our economy We have disagreed, and do disagree, with this strategy. When [the climate change] controversy first erupted . . . scientists were found who are skeptical about much of what seemed generally accepted about the potential for climate change. Among them were Michaels, Balling, and S. Fred Singer But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth- seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first timeLindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC http://dieoff.org/page82.htm And how does Lindzen's getting paid for his consulting services change the reality or unreality of what he says? How does the attention and political agenda of Al Gore change the reality or unreality of what he says? Why don't you address what he says and the logic and rationality of what he says instead of trying to show that the guy makes a living? None of us here has anything remotely approaching the expertise to address the reality or unreality of what either he or Al Gore has said, of course. The only possible way for the layperson to evaluate the various claims is to determine cui bono, who benefits from promoting which point of view. If we were to find a truly financially and politically independent, highly credentialed skeptic, his or her views might be worth taking seriously as a dissenting voice to the general consensus (and yes, there is indeed a general consensus; it's blatantly disingenuous of Lindzen to suggest otherwise). The views of a skeptic funded by the energy companies are automatically suspect. Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and Bill Clinton wouldn't even look in the direction of an offer of $2,500 a day... Your rhetoric is becoming increasingly empty, Shemp. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gore wrong on consensus says MIT prof
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no consensus on global warming. BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT (His piece is from the Wall Street Journal, BTW.) Excerpts from THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial by Ross Gelbspan, from Harper's magazine, December 1995 For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among otherswho have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skepticsLindzen, Michaels, and Ballingwere hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. An especially aggressive industry player, Western Fuels was quite candid about its strategy in two annual reports: [T]here has been a close to universal impulse in the trade association community here in Washington to concede the scientific premise of global warming . . . while arguing over policy prescriptions that would be the least disruptive to our economy We have disagreed, and do disagree, with this strategy. When [the climate change] controversy first erupted . . . scientists were found who are skeptical about much of what seemed generally accepted about the potential for climate change. Among them were Michaels, Balling, and S. Fred Singer But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth- seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first timeLindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC http://dieoff.org/page82.htm And how does Lindzen's getting paid for his consulting services change the reality or unreality of what he says? How does the attention and political agenda of Al Gore change the reality or unreality of what he says? Why don't you address what he says and the logic and rationality of what he says instead of trying to show that the guy makes a living? None of us here has anything remotely approaching the expertise to address the reality or unreality of what either he or Al Gore has said, of course. The only possible way for the layperson to evaluate the various claims is to determine cui bono, who benefits from promoting which point of view. ...but that wasn't your position with Michael Creighten, Judy. A multimillionaire many, many times over, Creighten has absolutely NOTHING to gain from opposing global warming hype...indeed, he probably LOSES money by talking about it. No, your position with Creighten -- an MD, Harvard graduate and recognized as a scientist by most credible people -- was that he wasn't a scientist, so we had to ignore him. And with the Oregon Petition -- that list signed by about 18,000 scientists opposing the claims about global warming -- well, hey, they don't have anything to gain by opposing global warming, do they? And yet you found some other reason to dismiss them. So please stop with the cui bonon business, Johnny-come-lately. If we were to find a truly financially and politically independent, highly credentialed skeptic, his or her views might be worth taking seriously as a dissenting voice to the general consensus (and yes, there is indeed a general consensus; it's blatantly disingenuous of Lindzen to suggest otherwise). The views of a skeptic funded by the energy companies are automatically suspect. Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and Bill Clinton wouldn't even look in the direction of an offer of $2,500 a day... Your rhetoric is becoming increasingly empty, Shemp. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
