[at-l] Follow Through On Global Warming (OT)

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Steve Landis wrote:
>On 2/22/2004 12:14 AM, Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
>>..This whole thread is pure bullshit - and I haven't even read the whole 
>>thread...
>>
>>Walk softly,
>>Jim
>
>You *know* we're saving this quote ;)  Hope the sight's getting better Jim.

Steve - et al -
Just got back from spending a couple days with my kids and grandkids.  Looks 
like things didn't get much better while I was gone.  Oh well........

The sight is the same - but it doesn't prevent me from  seeing that the 
thread is still bullshit.

Just a couple  examples why  -

for you (and others) - re: the Pentagon and global warming --- The 
"Pentagon" constantly does wargaming on a wide variety of "possible 
scenarios".  It's their business and they've been doing computer-based 
gaming since the mid-50's. It's something that I took part in for a while in 
the mid-60's.  And my brother got into it for some years as well.   If 
you've never seen the movie "Red Dawn" - don't bother, but the plot was 
taken directly from a Pentagon wargaming scenario.  Several other movies 
have been based on the same kind of "original plots".  They plan (wargame) 
everything from how to pull American citizens out of Haiti to how to repel 
invaders from Mars (or wherever).  Anyone who's surprised that they'd 
wargame global warming is simply - well, let's just be kind and call it 
"unthinking and uninformed."

for Walt Daniels - the Manchester Guardian is on about the same level as 
your typical American supermarket tabloid.  Hmm - actually that's an insult 
to the American supermarket tabloids - they're generally more accurate than 
the Guardian.  The Fortune article is better, but still labels the whole 
thing as speculative brainstorming - which is precisely what I just said in 
the previous paragraph.

for Roks - where do I start?  How about a recent quote from Jim Hansen (the 
"Godfather" of Global Warming)?
>New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter 
>the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, 
>black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming 
>over the past century.
>
>Soot's increased absorption of solar energy is especially effective in 
>warming the world's climate. "This forcing is unusually effective, causing 
>twice as much global warming as a carbon-dioxide forcing of the same 
>magnitude," Hansen noted.

Jim Hansen is one of the original "CO2 is the "ONLY cause of global warming" 
people.  Now he's saying it's only 75% - and he still hasn't included a 
dozen or so other factors into his GCM (computer model).  Will it make a 
difference?  He doesn't know - and neither do I.  Does anyone think Roks 
does?

I've got pictures of the Canadian glaciers that show exactly this effect.  
I'll email them (privately) on request.  It took me less than 30 seconds of 
viewing those glaciers last summer to determine the answer to all the 
"glacier" questions that Roks has thrown out here  over the last couple 
years.

for anyone who gives a damn - Gore is a competent politician, but I know of 
no reputable scientist who considers Gore's scientific ability to be beyond 
the 5th grade level.  And I know a lot of scientists.  As for his claims 
about the Internet - his claim was that he was responsible for its  
development and propagation through his support for the technology.  And 
that's just plain insulting to those who actually did what he claimed to 
have done.  And if memory serves, that claim is in  the Congressional Record 
- probably sometime in 94 or 95 - as well as in other places.

for Weary - I won't mess with your vicious attack on Ray Stern except to say 
that he was here to talk about hiking - he didn't come here to listen to 
your political bullshit - or Kelly's. We can all get more than enough of 
that anyplace and everyplace else in the world.

But to stick to the subject - Weary's "catastrophic warming" is both 
unsupported and insupportable.  Even the highly biased UN study that's the 
basis for a lot the "politicized science" floating around these days makes 
no such claims.  To use a corrected version of Weary's own words - the 
"catastrophic" effects he speaks of come from those who those whose 
financial futures and careers depend on convincing people of their doomsday 
scenario, and by those who have given up thinking in favor of faith in a 
hysterically negative ideology.  I don't know any reputable scientist who 
would support the "catastrophic" scenario.  But there are certainly some 
third raters who support it.

In fact, there's a recent (2003) book titiled, "The Next 50 Years".  It's a 
compilation of 25 essays by some of the worlds leading scientists in fields 
ranging from biology to  nanotechnology predicting the trends and problems 
to be faced in the next 50 years.  None  of them so much as mentions global 
warming as even a minor problem in that time period.

He's also only partially right in that the subject has not "become" a 
religious debate - it's always been a religious debate.

But it is nice to know that he's finally accepted that there are multiple 
causes for global warming.  It's only taken a couple years for him to admit 
what I told him back on the TA list.

Finally - for Kelly, who transmogrified the thread -- on WMD - since over 
100 of the world's  intelligence agencies believed that Hussein the Insane 
had them, what's your beef?  In fact, how about a couple  quotes from your 
favorite President and his cohorts --

>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
>want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17,1998
>
>"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great 
>deal
>here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, 
>chemical
>or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security 
>threat
>we face."Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
>since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
>
>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical 
>weapons
>throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

So, tell me again ---- who's been lying to you, Kelly?

And I didn't even have to mention a "hummer." <G>

Now - a question for Steve --  so why do you think I'd have to read the 
whole thread to know it was full of bullshit?  <G>

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide. 
http://special.msn.com/home/firsthome.armx