Re: Globaloney elsewhere

On Feb 13, 2:03 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:27 pm, "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:8834db2e-05ad-4dde-9f89-752280cd864f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Feb 12, 1:30 pm, Jill <perspicaci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:52:47 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven

<andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:26 am, Jill <perspicaci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:12:48 GMT, "Grizzlie Antagonist"

<lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Al Gore and every global warming freak in the world needs to be sent
to these places with a bathing suit, a bottle of sun tan lotion, and a
beach towel.

Have "fun in the sun", turkeys!

Yeah, I'm here in Wisconsin laying out in the sun and working on my
tan every afternoon.  Hahaha.

Reality:  My bathtub drain pipe has been frozen solid for a week
making it impossible to drain the tub of about 6 inches of water.  The
snow is piled up well over 2 feet high and its snowing again as I type
this but Algore promises we will burn up "soon."

What is scary is a notice in my church bulletin from last Sunday.  The
parish is holding two "special" showings of Algore's idiot movie
"free" next week.  I expected a little more common sense from the
Catholic Church (my mistake it seems).  Besides seeing that tripe free
is still too expensive.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080211/D8UNSGJG0.html

Feb 10, 10:57 PM (ET)

By The Associated Press

HAZLETON, Pa. (AP) - Windy, bitterly cold weather spread from the
northern
Plains to the northeast on Sunday, with blinding snow canceling
church
services in parts of Michigan and causing a 68-vehicle pileup in
Pennsylvania.

A woman died in the Pennsylvania pileup when her car became wedged
underneath a tractor-trailer, said Lt. Jason Zoshak of Hazleton
Township
Fire and Rescue. About 35 people were injured, and at least 24 people
whose cars were not drivable were taken to shelters, he said.

Firefighters used ropes to rescue people who had scrambled out of
their cars and jumped down an embankment to avoid being hit. "They
had a heavy snow
squall going through the area, zero visibility, high winds," Zoshak
said."There were vehicles everywhere."

Also in Pennsylvania, a 60-foot tree toppled by high winds fell onto
a sport utility vehicle traveling along a Berks County road, killing a
48-year-old
man and critically injuring his 49-year-old wife, state police said.

The bitter cold snap and strong winds also created icy driving
conditions that shut down interstates and highways in Wisconsin.
Wind chills sent the
temperature plunging to at least 35 degrees below zero on Sunday.

The Wisconsin State Highway Patrol closed a seven-mile stretch of
Interstate
39/90 just south of Madison for about an hour and a half because of
icy driving conditions. Strong winds blew snow around to create
near-whiteouts and snow drifts.

It was the same area - but in the opposite direction - where
thousands of motorists were stranded for as long as 12 hours in a
snowstorm last week.

In Michigan, the body of a missing 87-year-old man with Alzheimer's
disease
was found Sunday morning about five blocks from his Leland home. The
man died of exposure to the cold, the Leelanau County sheriff's
department said.

Michigan State Police said the Mackinac Bridge, a five-mile span that
links
Michigan's two peninsulas, was closed for several hours due to high
winds and whiteout conditions. Authorities reopened it Sunday evening,
letting vehicles cross at slow speed under police escort.

Churches across western Michigan canceled services, The Grand Rapids
Press
reported. "The road conditions are just terrible. There's been slide-offs
all over and the roads are very icy," said William Marino, a weather
service meteorologist in Grand Rapids.

Sunday's Lansing Polar Plunge charity benefit, in which people were
to jump into the cold water at Hawk Island County Park, was reset to
Feb. 24, the
Lansing State Journal reported. Sunday's midday temperature was only
zero, but the wind chill was 23 below zero, the weather service said.

Terry Gerhartz, of Chilton, Wis., said he made sure not to have any
exposed skin when he went to his fish shanty on Lake Winnebago. "If
you got stuck out there, you'd get cold in a hurry," Gerhartz, 48, said
as he warmed up at a restaurant in Hilbert.

In Madison, Wis., the temperature was minus-4 with a wind chill of
minus-25, while Green Bay's temperatures got down to minus-6, with a
wind chill of minus-32.

Sunday's noon reading at Devils Lake, N.D., was 20 below, with a wind
chill of minus 38, the weather service said. On Saturday, the town
warmed to a high of 13 below - with a wind chill of minus-42.

International Falls, Minn., the Canadian border city that's won the
trademark of "Icebox of the Nation," was only 15 degrees below zero
by noon Sunday, but the wind chill was a painful 40 below.

The point here is that anecdotes about local weather prove nothing,
either way, about Global Warming. ( Just as " well, I don't know any
women who beat up their husbands ", also fails to prove anything about
the prevalence of domestic violence in both directions. ) Rather, GW is
likely a cause of local weather patterns getting wilder, in both temperature
directions,
and one result is shorter but harsher winters in areas such as Canada.

The wikipedia article is a fair summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

This site offers some information on GW harbingers, and shows the
effects and changes on each continent.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/namerica.html

Andre, I'm old enough to recall back in 1974 when the alarmists were
screeching that the weather was getting colder and by the turn of the
century (2000) we'd all be under ice.

The problem with this erroneous comparison is that, *at best*, the
global cooling of the 70s was a *hypothesis*, while the present theory
is, well, a proper scientific theory.

While I understand that you don't much like Wikipedia, and I have a
few isues with some of it's entries, as well, it still often does give
good summaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained
temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better
understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of
temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

" ... never had significant scientific support... "

Also, summarised in that same entry, we find:

The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program
for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not
have
a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what
determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does
not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action"
consisted simply
 of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use
of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire
the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the
climatic impacts."

So, to claim or suggest that the 70s concept of global cooling was in
any way similar to the present scientific standing for global warming is
ignorant, at best, and willfully ignorant, at worst.

That was at the time of the
first Oil Embargo which was no coincidence.

Actually, it was, as the Wiki article shows in the section about
it's pre 70s period, and early 70s awareness. So, you are quite
wrong here, as well.

All of this weather
"science" is politically motivated junk science IMO and I refuse to
take any of it seriously.

Then, you oppose basic science, where it comes to pressing issues
of public policy. That means that your voice on such issues is simply
not to be taken seriously, as you yourself, refuse to take the present
information seriously.

YMMV.

My " mileage " works o one principle, always: What are the facts,
and how do we know this ? All else is nonsense.

To suggest that we know no more now about this topic, than was known
30-40 years ago, is also lunacy.

Andre

And if, in 1972, anyone had told the scientists back then that they didn't
have enough information to know what they were talking about, they would
have said, "Of course we do.  We know much more about this topic than we did
30-40 years ago."

Ah, so you are trying to posit a scientific nihlism. Sorry, that dog
eventually
stops being able to hunt.

Stop stealing Jill's material.


In 1962, Rachel Carson said that human malfeasance would bring about
environmental forces that would cause the world to come to an end in 20
years.

Do you have a cite to back up that specific claim ?

I don't know that she specified 20 years, but she did write several
times about mankind facing two roads, one of which leads rapidly to
"the end" due to environmental abuse. I did read Silent Spring, but
that was almost 40 years ago.

But there's this, regarding a claimed tendency of hers to exaggerate
and lie in general:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

Another that's a bit more charitable:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html

My search for it
via Google came up empty, though I did find several right wing sites
directly comparing her to Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/955667/posts

Rachel Carson's Ecological Genocide-Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ... Rachel
Carson.

Disingenuity, thy name is Andre. You should have dug deeper, rather
than gone for shlock value, because the actual article itself doesn't
mention Hitler or Pol Pot, nor are those names in the title. Whoever
posted it to Free Republic added that.


And I'm sure that she felt that she had plenty of science to back
that up.

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7668

In 1951 Rachel Carson wrote about global warming for  Popular
Science
magazine.
-----------------

So, she was right, and was ahead of her time.

Unless I missed it, no where in your cite does it detail just exactly
*what* she wrote about global warming. She could have been completely
off-base.


So I'm not very impressed with your suggestion that we know it all NOW!

Straw Whore. Please point out where I said " we know it *all* ".

The "global warming" party line has changed, and you know it.

Another poor game of the whipped by the facts crowd is to try to play
the " and you know it " card. How Oprah of you. No, there is one
person
who can say, with authority, what I know: Thats ME, bucko.

So are you claiming that you have no idea of any opposing concepts to
Gore's claims of the cause of global warming? That would demonstrate
either massive ignorance or massive dishonesty. Either one demolishes
any claim on your part to discuss this issue intelligently.


The party line used to be "The earth is getting warmer.  The ice cap is
melting and oceans are going to overflow and drown us all.  Make Al Gore
Pontifus Maximus and give him dictatorial powers over all of us.  That's the
only way to save the planet."

Once again, stripped of the insane drama-QUEEN language there, yes,
melting ice in large amounts will, *among other things*, raise sea
levels.
Since many major cities are right on the water ( NYC, London, etc. ),
this is a non trivial issue; ask any Venetian...

The drama queen language is consistently offered up by the left wing,
not the right wing, and generally not only misrepresents the causes of
global warming, but the overall consequences and time frames.


And NOW, the party line is closer to what you said earlier.  Something to
the effect of well, er, there are some parts of the globe getting hotter and
some parts getting cooler and winters are getting shorter but more severe.

Um, no. The scientifically illiterate crowd may have done some of what
you
claim, but they speak for no one but themselves.

And a spectacularly large crowd this is, with significant media
representation. Your assertion that they speak only for themselves is
wrong--they have a huge influence on those who can't or won't delve
deeper for themelves.

I, for one, have long
known
that average and mean heating does NOT mean that *every spot on Earth*
only goes up by that same amount, only morons might believe such rot.

I've pointed out that the effects near the Poles are more pronounced,
by
way of an example that I have spoken about where, the first surface
ship
to ever batter it's way up to the North Pole only did it in 1977, yet
by 1994,
the ice situation was so much easier on ships that several breakers,
including 2 smaller and less powerful ones, had no trouble making a
rendezvous at the same Pole.

I don't think the argument is wheher or not global warming exists, the
debates are around cause and effect.


In other words, the weather is changing.  The temperature outside today is
not what it was yesterday.  The weather is not what it was 10, 20, 30, 40
yars ago.

Big whoop.

Big MS-statement. And, when the weather Changes, bad things do happen
to humans.

To some. Not all.


And yet, interestingly enough, the attempt to instill panic is still the
same.  And the solution is still the same.

No and no. But, as you display a massive and willful ignorance on the
facts
of this issue, its no surprise to me that you are using Rush L.
bleating points.

You talk as if the science is settled. It's not. "Facts" are not at
all resolved, and there is indeed a push to instill urgency and
misrepresent issues.


This just shows me that we really haven't come that far since our primitive
days when we invoked the will of the gods for the purpose of trying to
explain or influence the weather.  We felt helpless because we weren't in
control of the weather and that was an artificial way of reassuring
ourselves that we were in control.  We put our faith in chieftains and
medicine men and rewarded them with status, power, and material goods  -
the primitive equivalent of grant money, I suppose.

<Projection>

Do you even know the proper application of this word?


Today, it's the same old thing, except that we've become too "advanced" to
put our faith in pagan gods so we put our faith in "science" instead.

Yeah, what has science ever done for us, other than make our lives
comfortable,
longer, healthier, more capable, more equipped with all sorts of
gadgets that
do almost everything for us...

Agreed. But there has certainly been a dark side to science as well,
and no one should put blind faith in science. Research can be and has
been deliberately tweaked to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, and
research has also been politicized, with scientists trying to please
the funding masters.


Seriously, anyone spouting such anti science nonsense really does need
to live up to their own words, by throwing away all that is in their
life that
comes from science. So, your very refusal to do just that belies your
words.

Simplistic tripe. One can take the good, acknowledge flaws and
faults, and pick and choose with discrimination. This is not an all
or nothing game.


Instead of having chieftains and medicine men invoke the aid the gods on our
behalf, we invoke the aid of the scientists and Al Gore instead.  They've
become our new chieftains and medicine men.

Except that they actually have these pesky things on their side:
facts.

Er, no. They have what they're representing as facts, but these facts
are being hotly debated by scientists with very legitimate concerns.
"Facts" mean almost nothing devoid of content or sources.


Science - ***!  Yeah, science is all right in its place.  The computer on
my desk is a testament to that.  But scientists are also people who inject
laboratory rats with the equivalent of several tons of diet soda and when it
kills them, they say, "See?  That stuff is toxic!"

So ? Again, what scientifically illiterate morons ( Aka Huckabee
voters )
MS-understand is that such testing does a *range* of inputs, seeking,
among other things, where a possible boundary between " statistically
harmful " and not might be found. And, if you can find a way to get
even
one actual ton of anything into a rat, Stockholm awaits you.

I do believe the phrase was "equivalent" of several tons. What does
that mean for rats?


But, they don't give out prizes for drama queen empty Straw Whore
rhetoric.

Sue they do...see Gore's Nobel Prize and Oscar.


Our new chieftains and medicine men are people with too much time on their
hands competing with each other for limited supplies of grant money.  And we
are just as silly and just as primitive now as we were then if we continue
to uncritically accept their proclamations and continue to pay tribute to
them.

Says the fool living in a grass hut in Wisconsin...

Or the fool opening his beak like a baby bird to swallow every
"scientific" proclamation.


Andre

.