On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment.


Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.


In fact there has
been clear evidence that this planet has experienced major cyclical
climatic changes over the eons. The current warming trend may just be
a part of that process, and man's contribution to it may be much less
significant than what the environmental alarmists would lead us to
believe.


That's what I was talking about when I said "the politics of science".


How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.


Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment.


Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.

No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do not have enough
climatic history to determine just how and when the climate shifts
normally as a reference before we can accurately gauge the additional
effects of humans.


How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.


Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist.

I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that
I exist and not ponder why.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:39:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment.


Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.

No there isn't......


Yes, there is. Ice cores are an excellent record of climatic history,
and are good for over 500,000 years.


How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.


Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist.

I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that
I exist and not ponder why.


What part of existentialism dictates that one must must not "ponder"
their own existence?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 13 May 2005 04:11:08 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:39:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment.


Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.

No there isn't......


Yes, there is. Ice cores are an excellent record of climatic history,
and are good for over 500,000 years.

Yes, and that evidence shows the extent of the climatic shifts over
that time period. What it does not show is what precipitated those
changes, nor can it predict the additional effects of man's influence
over the environment.



How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.


Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist.

I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that
I exist and not ponder why.


What part of existentialism dictates that one must must not "ponder"
their own existence?

Existentialism is more concerned with "how", rather than "why". Well
that also depends on which purveyor of modern existentialism you tend
to follow.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :
On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
(The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals)

There has been no conclusive proof that

global warming is primarily the result of man's

influence over the environment.

(Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.)

No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do
not have enough climatic history to determine

just how and when the climate shifts normally

as a reference before we can accurately

gauge the additional effects of humans.



The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much ad plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.
Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming. Global warming was proved by the continual
shrinkage of the polar ice cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of
such. Villages that reside in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of
ice shrink each year.



Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and

closed mindset.

I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just

going to "accept" that I exist and not ponder

why.



Some feel the same about poorly crafted laws, but you take issue with
those free-thinkers and it moves you toward the goblin that you are
unable to cast out and exercise of yourself.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:00:26 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


There has been no conclusive proof that
global warming is primarily the result of man's
influence over the environment.

(Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.)

No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do
not have enough climatic history to determine
just how and when the climate shifts normally
as a reference before we can accurately
gauge the additional effects of humans.



The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much ad plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.

Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for instance, it was once
tropical in Montana, and that Glaciers covered much of the northern
United States during different time periods. This proves that the
earth's climate has vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this
DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current global warming cycle can be
attributed to natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much of it is a
direct result of man made pollution. Without a point of reference, it
is extremely difficult to positively determine how much we are
changing the climate.


Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming. Global warming was proved by the continual
shrinkage of the polar ice cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of
such. Villages that reside in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of
ice shrink each year.

How much of that shrinkage would still be occurring without man made
pollution?


Some feel the same about poorly crafted laws, but you take issue with
those free-thinkers and it moves you toward the goblin that you are
unable to cast out and exercise of yourself.

Once again, you don't get it (Why should I be surprised?). You want to
get rid of what you refer to as "poorly crafted laws"? Then great! Go
for it! You have my support. But until then, you are bound to respect
and obey the current laws as they stand.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:00:26 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
There has been no conclusive proof that
global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the
environment.
(Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.)

No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do
not have enough climatic history to determine

just how and when the climate shifts normally

as a reference before we can accurately

gauge the additional effects of humans.

The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.

Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for

instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and

that Glaciers covered much of the northern

United States during different time periods.

This proves that the earth's climate has

vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this

DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current

global warming cycle can be attributed to

natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much
of it is a direct result of man made pollution.




Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the
atmosphere are mand made. Many are not man made. Some are both. However,
science has methods of measuring each,,including natural occurring vs.
manmade chemicals,,,such as methane gases.


Without a point of reference, it is extremely

difficult to positively determine how much we

are changing the climate.

The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas. An
example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample.
Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases
and emissions. It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value
that took college science classes.
_
Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming.
Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice
cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside
in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year.

How much of that shrinkage would still be

occurring without man made pollution?



As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the
cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly
decided and accepted that something is amiss. When the glaciers continue
shrinking at an alarming rate that deviates from the projected models of
which you referred predictable climatic cycles, and the amount of junk
released in the air we KNOW has increased,..it's widely accepted by even
the republicans at this point. Do you even know what your own party says
on this issue now, Dave? You appear to be aruing with -them-.

_
You take issue with those free-thinkers and it moves you toward the
goblin that you are unable to cast out and exercise of yourself.

Once again, you don't get it (Why should I be

surprised?).


You won't be, because you continue to be on the defensive of everyone
that corrects you. You find fault with all of them. It's not us, Dave,
it's you. It's apparent it is glaringly painful when you are wrong and
corrected, but dammit, man, its not personal.

You want to get rid of what you refer to as

"poorly crafted laws"? Then great! Go for it!


No,,I love the laws and the manner in whcih they are enforced. They keep
dicks like you off the freeband and allow the rest of us to play
carefree and unfettered from you being reactive (oposed to proactive)
from the confines of your own home, much as you do on the internet. It's
yourself that has messed all over yourself time and again whining about
the lack of enforcement.

You have my support. But until then, you are

bound to respect and obey the current laws as
they stand.


Regarding this law and dx, I discriminately and selectively invoke Civil
Disobedience. Because you have difficulty comprehending the definitions
of words these days, you may seek to "quantify",,,er,,,qualify it.
Sorry,,,couldn't resist.


David Hall Jr,

."Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:17:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.

Again, we know what the climate was, but not conclusively how it got
that way. There are many good theories, but that's all they are.


Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for
instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and
that Glaciers covered much of the northern
United States during different time periods.
This proves that the earth's climate has
vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this
DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current
global warming cycle can be attributed to
natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much
of it is a direct result of man made pollution.

Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the
atmosphere are man made. Many are not man made.


Exactly, which is why it is extremely difficult to make a positive
determination as to the percentage of man's contribution to the total
amount of global warming.


Some are both. However,
science has methods of measuring each,,including natural occurring vs.
manmade chemicals,,,such as methane gases.

Yes, and that "science" is in much dispute right now as there are many
scientists who do not accept the findings of others as conclusive.
There are still many assumptions being made.


Without a point of reference, it is extremely
difficult to positively determine how much we
are changing the climate.

The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas.

Which we cannot positively ascertain because we do not know how much
of that gas truly came as a result of man-made pollution versus that
which is naturally occurring. One large volcano eruption, for
instance, can drastically effect the concentration of methane gasses
in the atmosphere.


An
example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample.
Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases
and emissions.

Or a volcano eruption. Methane gas does not have a "tag" which says
"man made" or natural. We can only measure the total concentration.


It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value
that took college science classes.

Since you called it "elementary", it's obvious that you've never
studied it, as it is far too complex a process to be called
"elementary". By attempting to make this issue simpler than it really
is, you also disparage the scientists who do this for a living.


Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming.

No argument. But you can't positively determine the rate of global
warming that might still be occurring if we suddenly stopped using
fossil fuels today.


Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice
cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside
in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year.

How much of that shrinkage would still be
occurring without man made pollution?

As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the
cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly

dedeucedly? Do you mean deductively? And you chastise MY vocabulary
and grammar.......


decided and accepted that something is amiss.

First of all, there is no "norm" when it comes to climatic shifts.
Many of those shifts occurred as the direct result of an external
random event, such as the asteroid strike which is generally the
current accepted theory for precipitating the extinction of the
dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. There are other craters
all over the planet, as evidence of other such strikes. There is also
evidence of large volcano eruptions, which can spew enough particulate
matter into the atmosphere, that an "ice age" would likely result. The
climatic shifts which occur between these significant events is likely
only the result of climatic balance or a normalization from the
extremes caused by the random external events. It's also conceivable
that over the last billion years, that the solar energy output from
the sun could have deviated to some degree as well, which can
certainly affect surface temperature here.

We may still be "recovering" from the last ice age, as early evidence
shows that this planet was a great deal warmer millions of years ago.


When the glaciers continue
shrinking at an alarming rate that deviates from the projected models of
which you referred predictable climatic cycles

There have been more than a few major volcano eruptions in the last 25
years, which may play a role in this.


, and the amount of junk
released in the air we KNOW has increased,..it's widely accepted by even
the republicans at this point. Do you even know what your own party says
on this issue now, Dave? You appear to be aruing with -them-.

This is science, not politics. I'm arguing that we don't definitively
know the relative effects of man's pollution on the total amount of
global warming because there are still too many variables to make a
responsible conclusion.

You also failed to address the other side of the coin. Not only is
man's pollution a factor, but the gradual deforesting, by land
developers, can have a profound effect on the amount of CO2 in the air
(A major greenhouse gas)

_
You take issue with those free-thinkers and it moves you toward the
goblin that you are unable to cast out and exercise of yourself.

I have nothing against "free thinkers" (I am one), but I have a
problem with reckless thinking, and drawing alarmist conclusions when
all of the facts are not yet known.


Once again, you don't get it (Why should I be
surprised?).

You won't be, because you continue to be on the defensive of everyone
that corrects you.

It's not my problem that you are wrong in most cases (The roger beep
issue notwithstanding)


You find fault with all of them.

"Them", consists of you, and now recently, Frank.

It's not us, Dave, it's you.

Yet you've failed to prove me wrong in virtually every dispute that
we've had.


It's apparent it is glaringly painful when you are wrong and
corrected, but dammit, man, its not personal.

It takes more than simply stating your opposing opinion and the citing
of a mythical "majority" support group, that you, as a freelance
fishing rag contributor, claim to have the inside track with to prove
me wrong. Where are your facts?

Simply claiming that "the majority disagrees with you" is meaningless,
without corroborating proof.


You want to get rid of what you refer to as
"poorly crafted laws"? Then great! Go for it!


No,,I love the laws and the manner in whcih they are enforced.

You'd rather break the law. Socially irresponsible.

They keep
dicks like you off the freeband and allow the rest of us to play
carefree and unfettered from you being reactive (oposed to proactive)
from the confines of your own home, much as you do on the internet. It's
yourself that has messed all over yourself time and again whining about
the lack of enforcement.

Yea, silly me, for wishing that more people would accept more personal
responsibility and understand their societal obligations, in the same
way that their grandparents did.


You have my support. But until then, you are
bound to respect and obey the current laws as
they stand.


Regarding this law and dx, I discriminately and selectively invoke Civil
Disobedience.

A lame excuse from a simple scofflaw who narcissistically places their
own idea of self worth above the value of society itself.

Because you have difficulty comprehending the definitions
of words these days, you may seek to "quantify",,,er,,,qualify it.
Sorry,,,couldn't resist.

That's ok, I would never have "deduecedy" figured that out without
your help.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:17:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.

Again, we know what the climate was, but not

conclusively how it got that way.


It's called weather. Weather coupled with other events.

There are

many good theories, but that's all they are.


Changing the topic from one of you learning how global warming is
defined, studied, and confirmed to another serves only to solidify your
pain in ebing incorrect.

Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for

instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and

that Glaciers covered much of the northern

United States during different time periods.

This proves that the earth's climate has

vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this

DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current

global warming cycle can be attributed to

natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much
of it is a direct result of man made pollution.

Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the
atmosphere are man made. Many are not man made.

Exactly, which is why it is extremely difficult to

make a positive determination as to the

percentage of man's contribution to the total

amount of global warming.


It's not difficult at all. I just taught you that the concentration of
such gases, such as methane gas, is but a single method by which is
measured.
Some are both. However,
science has methods of measuring
each,,including natural occurring vs. manmade chemicals,,,such as
methane gases.

Yes, and that "science" is in much dispute

right now as there are many scientists who do

not accept the findings of others as

conclusive. There are still many assumptions

being made.


Not regarding global warming. Twenty years ago, yes..today, it is widely
accepted and taught mainstream.

Without a point of reference, it is extremely

difficult to positively determine how much we

are changing the climate.

The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas.

Which we cannot positively ascertain because

we do not know how much of that gas truly

came as a result of man-made pollution


versus that which is naturally occurring.


But we do.

One large volcano eruption, for instance, can

drastically effect the concentration of methane

.gasses in the atmosphere.


Yes, but it does not dilute or enrich what is already there, it simply
adds quantity to one or the other. Such an example is very easily taken
into consideration and calculations allow for the exact molecular
configuration when determining such factors. This is done by the precise
and absolute measuremtn of related contributions, such as time of
eruption, length of eruption, velocity of eruption, etc., etc.

_
An
example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample.
Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases
and emissions.

Or a volcano eruption. Methane gas does not

have a "tag" which says "man made" or

natural.

We can only measure the total concentration.
=A0

Which is the exact manner in which to tell man-made from natural.
=A0It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value that took
college science classes.

Since you called it "elementary", it's obvious

that you've never studied it, as it is far too

complex a process to be called "elementary".

Umm,,no. Go back and reread just what I called "elementary"... not what
you felt the need to misrepresent here.

By attempting to make this issue simpler than

it really is, you also disparage the scientists

who do this for a living.

It is very simple for anyone who has ever taken college science classes,
but gases are introduced in elementary school science.
_
Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming.

No argument. But you can't positively

determine the rate of global warming that

might still be occurring if we suddenly stopped
using fossil fuels today.


Sure you can. One measures the rate of speed the studied glaciers melt.
If they suddenly stopped melting and began growing, the figured
equations and calculations are all that's left to give you the answer
you seek.
Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice
cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside
in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year.

How much of that shrinkage would still be

occurring without man made pollution?

As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the
cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly

dedeucedly? Do you mean deductively?

Ha,,no I meant "deucedly", as in wickedly confirmed. I was watching the
penguin on the Dudley Doright cartoons and my fingers did their own
thing..

And

you chastise MY vocabulary and grammar.......

Huge difference. I admit my mistakes whereas you scream bloody murder or
try to ignore yours because of the pain they cause you.

_
decided and accepted that something is
amiss.

First of all, there is no "norm" when it comes to

clim`atic shifts.



When "deviation from the norm" is used in such a reference, it means
deviation from the usual patterns. -You- were first to claim weather
patterns in his topic, now you again, self-contradict yourself.

Many of those shifts occurred as the direct

result of an external random event, such as

the asteroid strike which is generally the

current accepted theory for precipitating the

extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the

Cretaceous period.


Not any more. Perhaps when you were i grammar school, but the most
compelling andgenerally accepted theory now is they simply died out. The
meteor that caused the ice age that was originally thought to have
brought about the extinction of such creatures is now believed to have
occured many, many years after the dinosaurs have already become
extinct.

There are other craters all over the planet, as

evidence of other such strikes.

Yea,,and if you ever were west of the Mississippi, you would have
undoubtedly had the chance to see one.

There is also

evidence of large volcano eruptions,


..in 'patterns' of eras of high activity.

which

can spew enough particulate matter into the

atmosphere, that an "ice age" would likely

result.


And did.

The climatic shifts which occur between

these significant events is likely only the result
of climatic balance or a normalization from the
extremes caused by the random external

events. It's also conceivable that over the last

billion years, that the solar energy output from

the sun could have deviated to some degree

as well, which can certainly affect surface

temperature here.



It's not conceivable, it's been proved the sun's harmful rays have
intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the ozone layer.
This is called global warming.
Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done.