On 05/11/2011 11:40 AM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 11, 11:20 am, John wrote:
On 5/11/2011 10:49 AM, joe wrote:





bpnjensen wrote:

On May 9, 10:02 pm, John wrote:
On 5/9/2011 9:49 PM, hroedrank wrote:

...
Be its cigarette smoking, or co2 output, they both not politically
correct, and therefore on the left it's far too much to hope and assume
that an intelligent debate that puts the risk into reasonably
intelligent terms once again shows the dishonesty of the left and
socialists in this regards.

Super Turtle

Yeah, I think many toxins are hidden within the "toxic cigarette smoke"
verbiage ... now it will have to make room for the radiation coming from
Japan which we are still breathing and which will still be being created
for sometime to come as the nuclear plant continues releasing tremendous
quantities of deadly toxins to drift over here, to the USA.

Regards,
JS

This is BS. This "scientist" does not even have the balls to use his
real name to stand behind his bogus assertion.

You fell for the action of a troll.
1) Take a thread that has morphed into something else. (This gives you a
subject)
2) Take a message from that thread and reply to it (this adds the the
'somebody wrote')
3) Delete all but a statement posted by someone else.
4) Add his own spin which is unrelated all of the above.
5) Post it to a bunch of groups unrelated to the original thread.

Super Turtle is probably not hroedrank and neither are the MIT Scientist.

If you look at he original thread, you'll see a lot of ignorant arguments.

I don't consider anything JS posts to be relevant.

I am afraid, I am left unimpressed with all of that ... others may
choose for themselves ... just to reference proper perspective.

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are generally unimpressed with anything that resembles sound
reasoning. Joe is right. You are, at your core, just an idiot troll.

..

On May 11, 11:54*am, dave wrote:
On 05/11/2011 11:40 AM, bpnjensen wrote:







On May 11, 11:20 am, John *wrote:
On 5/11/2011 10:49 AM, joe wrote:

bpnjensen wrote:

On May 9, 10:02 pm, John * *wrote:
On 5/9/2011 9:49 PM, hroedrank wrote:

...
Be its cigarette smoking, or co2 output, they both not politically
correct, and therefore on the left it's far too much to hope and assume
that an intelligent debate that puts the risk into reasonably
intelligent terms once again shows the dishonesty of the left and
socialists in this regards.

Super Turtle

Yeah, I think many toxins are hidden within the "toxic cigarette smoke"
verbiage ... now it will have to make room for the radiation coming from
Japan which we are still breathing and which will still be being created
for sometime to come as the nuclear plant continues releasing tremendous
quantities of deadly toxins to drift over here, to the USA.

Regards,
JS

This is BS. *This "scientist" does not even have the balls to use his
real name to stand behind his bogus assertion.

You fell for the action of a troll.
1) Take a thread that has morphed into something else. (This gives you a
subject)
2) Take a message from that thread and reply to it (this adds the the
'somebody wrote')
3) Delete all but a statement posted by someone else.
4) Add his own spin which is unrelated all of the above.
5) Post it to a bunch of groups unrelated to the original thread.

Super Turtle is probably not hroedrank and neither are the MIT Scientist.

If you look at he original thread, you'll see a lot of ignorant arguments.

I don't consider anything JS posts to be relevant.

I am afraid, I am left unimpressed with all of that ... others may
choose for themselves ... just to reference proper perspective.

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are generally unimpressed with anything that resembles sound
reasoning. *Joe is right. *You are, at your core, just an idiot troll.

Dave,
-wrt- We have half a million years of climate data in Antarctic ice
and... The Earth's Gonna Do What The Earth's Gonna Do !
Critical 'Climate Change' Factor # 1 = The Sun
Major 'Climate Change' Factor # 2 = The Earth {Itself}
Minor 'Climate Change' Factor #............13 = Humanity {Us}
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' truth

OK - Dave so that would be 500K Years -versus- 1K
Years of Man's Industrial Age.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' reality

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

That's Naturally Evolving as in a Living Planet :
'Climate Change' -yes-the-earth-is-a-living-planet-
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' reality

Dave even the Obama-Regime No Longer Calls the
Decade/Century Long-Term Changing Weather Pattern
"Global Warming" -a-la- Al Gore -but- Simple "Climate
Change".
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' truth

On 05/11/2011 06:18 PM, RHF wrote:

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

The PPM for CO2 has never been above 290 until we started pumping coal
smoke into the air. It's been higher in the distant past, but never this
high with humans around.

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/arton2481.jpg

On 5/12/2011 5:09 AM, dave wrote:
On 05/11/2011 06:18 PM, RHF wrote:

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

The PPM for CO2 has never been above 290 until we started pumping coal
smoke into the air. It's been higher in the distant past, but never this
high with humans around.

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/arton2481.jpg

Where did you get that information at?

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/libr...18/dioxide.htm

The spreading of false data is not a good thing ...

Regards,
JS

On May 12, 9:15*am, John Smith wrote:
On 5/12/2011 5:09 AM, dave wrote:

On 05/11/2011 06:18 PM, RHF wrote:

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

The PPM for CO2 has never been above 290 until we started pumping coal
smoke into the air. It's been higher in the distant past, but never this
high with humans around.

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/arton2481.jpg

Where did you get that information at?

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/libr...18/dioxide.htm

The spreading of false data is not a good thing ...

Regards,
JS

Dave is a Disciple of Al Gore the False Prophet of
Global Warming. -smoking-medical-marijuana-

The New York Times
Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only.

May 12, 2011
Report Stresses Urgency of Action on Climate
By LESLIE KAUFMAN

The nation’s scientific establishment issued a stark warning to the
American public on Thursday: Not only is global warming real, but the
effects are already becoming serious and the need has become “pressing”
for a strong national policy to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases.

The report, by the National Research Council, an arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, did not endorse any specific legislative approach,
but it did say that attaching some kind of price to emissions of carbon
dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, would ideally be an essential
component of any plan.

“The risks associated with doing business as usual are a much greater
concern than the risks associated with engaging in ambitious but
measured response efforts,” the report concludes. “This is because many
aspects of an ‘overly ambitious’ policy response could be reversed or
otherwise addressed, if needed, through subsequent policy change,
whereas adverse changes in the climate system are much more difficult
(indeed, on the time scale of our lifetimes, may be impossible) to ‘undo.’ ”

The report, “America’s Climate Choices,” was ordered by Congress several
years ago to offer “action-oriented advice” on how the nation should be
reacting to the potential consequences of climate change.

But the answer comes at a time when efforts to adopt a climate-change
policy have stalled in Washington, with many of the Republicans who
control the House expressing open skepticism about the science of
climate change. Other legislators, including some Democrats, worry that
any new law would translate into higher energy prices and hurt the economy.

Not only is the science behind the climate-change forecast solid, the
report found, but the risks to future generations from further inaction
are profound. Already, the report noted, sea level is rising in many
American towns and the average United States air temperature has
increased by two degrees in the last 50 years.

The report’s authors — an unusual combination of climate scientists,
businessmen and politicians — said they were very aware that the
political mood on climate change had changed significantly from when the
committee was formed in 2009. Because the report was also about policy
advice, the council named nonscientists, including Jim Geringer, a
conservative Republican and a former governor of Wyoming.

Albert Carnesale, the chairman of the panel and a chancellor emeritus of
the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he hoped the
panel’s diversity and that many came to the job without “prior bias”
would help sell it even to skeptical policy makers.

“It is an urgent problem to turn to, and what we’ve done differently is
to look at this as a risk management problem,” Dr. Carnesale said.

While no one knows the exact shape of the risks, Dr. Carnesale said, we
know that they are real enough to act on. And that they will be harder
to act on as time passes. “We don’t know exactly when the tsunami will
hit or how high it will be, but we know it is coming, and we should
prepare,” Dr. Carnesale said.

But Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, who has been
leading the charge against further regulating carbon emissions, swiftly
dismissed the council’s findings in an interview Thursday. “I see
nothing substantive in this report that adds to the knowledge base
necessary to make an informed decision about what steps — if any —
should be taken to address climate change,” Mr. Barton said.

Although the report characterizes climate change as a problem that
urgently needs attention, it stops short of making highly specific
policy prescriptions, leaving that to lawmakers.

To many worried about climate change, that is a common flaw of such reports.

“This is the classic problem — the divide between scientific reality and
political courage,” said Paul W. Bledsoe, a senior adviser with the
Bipartisan Policy Center who has worked in Congress and with the White
House on these issues. “The scientific organizations are reluctant to
advocate detailed policy prescriptions, while political actors are
tentative about the scientific realities.”

The report outlined four areas that demanded immediate action by the
federal government.

For starters, it emphasized that reducing carbon emissions was critical
to keeping the United States from having to make dire choices in the
future. While stopping just short of recommending a carbon tax, the
committee did praise its efficacy.

“Analyses suggest that the best way to amplify and accelerate such
efforts, and to minimize overall costs (for any given national emissions
reduction target), is with a comprehensive, nationally uniform,
increasing price on” carbon emissions enough to “drive major investments
in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies,” the report said.

It also called on the federal government to play a much more active role
in researching new technologies and in helping the nation adapt to the
changes in the natural world that are already inevitable. Even with a
reduction in carbon output, the report said, some climate change will
continue to occur.

It noted that while many of the nations’ cities and states are taking
steps toward mitigating carbon output and preparing for hotter, wetter
conditions, it suggested that the federal government could help
coordinate these activities while also encouraging more research and
development.

“The federal government,” the report said, “should immediately undertake
the development of a national adaptation strategy and build durable
institutions to implement that strategy and improve it over time.”
Finally, while this report was designed, in contrast to the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to be by Americans
for Americans, the authors noted that climate change was a global
problem and the nation had an obligation to remain engaged with the
international community on possible solutions.

More in Environment (2 of 49 articles)
House Approves a Bill to Spur Oil Exploration

Read More »

On May 12, 7:47*pm, dave wrote:
The New York Times
Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only.

May 12, 2011
Report Stresses Urgency of Action on Climate
By LESLIE KAUFMAN

The nation’s scientific establishment issued a stark warning to the
American public on Thursday: Not only is global warming real, but the
effects are already becoming serious and the need has become “pressing”
for a strong national policy to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases.

The report, by the National Research Council, an arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, did not endorse any specific legislative approach,
but it did say that attaching some kind of price to emissions of carbon
dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, would ideally be an essential
component of any plan.

“The risks associated with doing business as usual are a much greater
concern than the risks associated with engaging in ambitious but
measured response efforts,” the report concludes. “This is because many
aspects of an ‘overly ambitious’ policy response could be reversed or
otherwise addressed, if needed, through subsequent policy change,
whereas adverse changes in the climate system are much more difficult
(indeed, on the time scale of our lifetimes, may be impossible) to ‘undo.’ ”

The report, “America’s Climate Choices,” was ordered by Congress several
years ago to offer “action-oriented advice” on how the nation should be
reacting to the potential consequences of climate change.

But the answer comes at a time when efforts to adopt a climate-change
policy have stalled in Washington, with many of the Republicans who
control the House expressing open skepticism about the science of
climate change. Other legislators, including some Democrats, worry that
any new law would translate into higher energy prices and hurt the economy.

Not only is the science behind the climate-change forecast solid, the
report found, but the risks to future generations from further inaction
are profound. Already, the report noted, sea level is rising in many
American towns and the average United States air temperature has
increased by two degrees in the last 50 years.

The report’s authors — an unusual combination of climate scientists,
businessmen and politicians — said they were very aware that the
political mood on climate change had changed significantly from when the
committee was formed in 2009. Because the report was also about policy
advice, the council named nonscientists, including Jim Geringer, a
conservative Republican and a former governor of Wyoming.

Albert Carnesale, the chairman of the panel and a chancellor emeritus of
the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he hoped the
panel’s diversity and that many came to the job without “prior bias”
would help sell it even to skeptical policy makers.

“It is an urgent problem to turn to, and what we’ve done differently is
to look at this as a risk management problem,” Dr. Carnesale said.

While no one knows the exact shape of the risks, Dr. Carnesale said, we
know that they are real enough to act on. And that they will be harder
to act on as time passes. “We don’t know exactly when the tsunami will
hit or how high it will be, but we know it is coming, and we should
prepare,” Dr. Carnesale said.

But Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, who has been
leading the charge against further regulating carbon emissions, swiftly
dismissed the council’s findings in an interview Thursday. “I see
nothing substantive in this report that adds to the knowledge base
necessary to make an informed decision about what steps — if any —
should be taken to address climate change,” Mr. Barton said.

Although the report characterizes climate change as a problem that
urgently needs attention, it stops short of making highly specific
policy prescriptions, leaving that to lawmakers.

To many worried about climate change, that is a common flaw of such reports.

“This is the classic problem — the divide between scientific reality and
political courage,” said Paul W. Bledsoe, a senior adviser with the
Bipartisan Policy Center who has worked in Congress and with the White
House on these issues. “The scientific organizations are reluctant to
advocate detailed policy prescriptions, while political actors are
tentative about the scientific realities.”

The report outlined four areas that demanded immediate action by the
federal government.

For starters, it emphasized that reducing carbon emissions was critical
to keeping the United States from having to make dire choices in the
future. While stopping just short of recommending a carbon tax, the
committee did praise its efficacy.

“Analyses suggest that the best way to amplify and accelerate such
efforts, and to minimize overall costs (for any given national emissions
reduction target), is with a comprehensive, nationally uniform,
increasing price on” carbon emissions enough to “drive major investments
in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies,” the report said.

It also called on the federal government to play a much more active role
in researching new technologies and in helping the nation adapt to the
changes in the natural world that are already inevitable. Even with a
reduction in carbon output, the report said, some climate change will
continue to occur.

It noted that while many of the nations’ cities and states are taking
steps toward mitigating carbon output and preparing for hotter, wetter
conditions, it suggested that the federal government could help
coordinate these activities while also encouraging more research and
development.

“The federal government,” the report said, “should immediately undertake
the development of a national adaptation strategy and build durable
institutions to implement that strategy and improve it over time.”
Finally, while this report was designed, in contrast to the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to be by Americans
for Americans, the authors noted that climate change was a global
problem and the nation had an obligation to remain engaged with the
international community on possible solutions.

More in Environment (2 of 49 articles)
House Approves a Bill to Spur Oil Exploration

Read More »

Dave is a Disciple of Al Gore the False Prophet of
Global Warming. -smoking-medical-marijuana-

-hint- Dave : Someone who smokes so-called
Medical-Marijuana : An Admitted Hydro-Carbon
Polluter Has NO Credibility Taking About the
Topic of "Global Warming" {a disproven theory}

On May 12, 6:11*pm, RHF wrote:
On May 12, 9:15*am, John Smith wrote:





On 5/12/2011 5:09 AM, dave wrote:

On 05/11/2011 06:18 PM, RHF wrote:

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

The PPM for CO2 has never been above 290 until we started pumping coal
smoke into the air. It's been higher in the distant past, but never this
high with humans around.

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/arton2481.jpg

Where did you get that information at?

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/libr...18/dioxide.htm

The spreading of false data is not a good thing ...

Regards,
JS

Dave is a Disciple of Al Gore the False Prophet of
Global Warming. -smoking-medical-marijuana-- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Al Gore smokes pot ? That is new to me .

On 5/12/2011 9:40 PM, wrote:
On May 12, 6:11 pm, wrote:
On May 12, 9:15 am, John wrote:





On 5/12/2011 5:09 AM, dave wrote:

On 05/11/2011 06:18 PM, RHF wrote:

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

The PPM for CO2 has never been above 290 until we started pumping coal
smoke into the air. It's been higher in the distant past, but never this
high with humans around.

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/arton2481.jpg

Where did you get that information at?

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/libr...18/dioxide.htm

The spreading of false data is not a good thing ...

Regards,
JS

Dave is a Disciple of Al Gore the False Prophet of
Global Warming. -smoking-medical-marijuana-- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Al Gore smokes pot ? That is new to me .

How else could he get those stupid arse blank stares, smiles and grins
on his face. He looks absolutely loony -- I believe there is excellent
reason(s) for that ...

Regards,
JS