http://www.lavoisier.com.au

Ha ha ha.


What a waste of time.






flipper wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:15:53 -0400, The Visitor
wrote:


I will look later.


Ok. I suggest you do. It's a good read.


I am not in Oz.


What has that got to do with "global warming?"


This was a warm winter yet record
amounts of snow. We only get snow in the 0 to -8C range. Then it is
heavy, wet and lots of it. If it is colder, then the snow is very light.

Personally, I like it!

John







flipper wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:06:44 -0400, The Visitor
wrote:



Where I am in Canada, it was a much warmer wilnter than normal. And that
allowed for more snow. It normally would get to cold to snow for about
five or eight weeks. Around -15 C. Instead it was always -5 C and warm
enough to make snow.


The best records available show global cooling for at least the last 3
years with 2008 being a drastic decline.

For someone who predicts more cooling see...

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/C...hibald2007.pdf





PeterD wrote:


On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:52:25 -0400, "amyotte"
wrote:




On track to a new record snow fall - 2" more to go to equal 1971-72 snow
fall - we have had 8ft 10inches of the white stuff so far.

BUTTT it is starting to melt, had a major thaw in Jan that wiped out most
but really want to strangle that damn groundhog that didn't forsee the crap
load of winter ahead.

Made it so I could work on a lot of chassis but I want out, never thought I
would say this, I want to cut grass.

Brian
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada area




Thank god for global warming, without that you'd have set all-time
records back in January!

flipper wrote:

Or is your version of 'science' a preconceived conclusion rejecting
anything that doesn't comport with it?


My version???? My version? No, I support neutral scientific
investigation without any pre-set agenda or attitudes or pre-drawn
conclusions. I especially dislike special intrest groups, and lobby
groups. Like some funded by oil interests.

Or groups worried mainly about protecting aluminium smeltin industry and
power generation. Hmmmm.
Or groups run by an ex finance minister and their concerns are mainly
avoiding economic impact.

I imagine if the www were older there would be websites expounding the
benifits of cigarette smoking for better health and clearing the lungs.
Like the old commercials featuring actual doctors promoting various brands.

=====================

http://www.lavoisier.com.au

Lavoisier Group Inc.

Can you tell me who funds this "group"?

I googled some names of their executives.
Do they have any real scientists in it?


From their website....

"...a group of Australians, concerned that there has been very little
ongoing public debate about these proposals, founded the Lavoisier
Group...We are of the view that the science behind global warming policy
is far less certain than its protagonists claim,..."



Don't you think they will only publish crap supporting what they want
others to think?

What a waste of time.

flipper wrote:

You refuse to even consider the merit of the facts and arguments made.
That isn't 'science' nor logic.


But I did consider what was written.
My advise to anybody, "What a waste of time."

But that is just my personal thoughts.
Anybody else, any established posters to this group, please chime in.

John

P.S. Who finances this group?????

"The Visitor" wrote in message
...
P.S. Who finances this group?????

Your tax dollars at work.

No, actually, it's a rather quiet group from a nearby planet. They prefer
to remain anonymous.

The Visitor wrote:

P.S. Who finances this group?????

No financing required really. The posts go to a worldwide network of
Usenet servers that individual entities paid for and they get their
money back reselling it or offering it as an adjunct to some other service.

You can do it too!

-Bill

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

flipper wrote:

No, you didn't. You decided you didn't like 'who' wrote 'whatever',
because you concluded they likely had an opinion different than yours,
and summarily ignored it.

I'm also 'bad' for making judgments based on consideration of the source.

-ex

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

No I read it first. I started to wonder about the "group", when I got to
the part about iminent global cooling. Then I started to wonder "who are
these people?"


In this day and age, it is only prudent to consider the source.


John







flipper wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:22:53 -0400, The Visitor
wrote:



flipper wrote:


You refuse to even consider the merit of the facts and arguments made.
That isn't 'science' nor logic.


But I did consider what was written.


No, you didn't. You decided you didn't like 'who' wrote 'whatever',
because you concluded they likely had an opinion different than yours,
and summarily ignored it.


My advise to anybody, "What a waste of time."


It certainly is for closed minds.


But that is just my personal thoughts.
Anybody else, any established posters to this group, please chime in.

John

P.S. Who finances this group?????