A Leftie conspiracy??

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/

micky wrote:

...

There are no "lefties" here. There are progressives and regressives.
One of those groups moves forward with history, while the other group
has been standing still for between 500-2000 years. The latter group
thinks it can stop history, and does not notice that history flows
around it, leaving it behind.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Jan 23, 2:08 am, "micky" wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/

Business is business. How many government-paid parasites of all kinds
are now making a living and career off "global warming?"
One example from the story:
The February report will have "much stronger evidence now of human
actions on the change in climate that's taken place," Rajendra
Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is
the head of the international climate change panel.
Some Indian who in his own country would be lucky to earn $6000/yr as a
climatologist now probably pulls down $150K or more as the head of this
panel. Mark my words, if you don't tow the line on global warming, you
might very well find yourself in a re-education camp.

Rich wrote:

Mark my words, if you don't tow the line on global warming, you
might very well find yourself in a re-education camp.

No Rich, the U.S. is still a free country despite the best efforts of
your buddies in the White House.
C'mon Rich, get over it. Go out and smell some cherry blossoms and
daffodils. I hear they're blooming nicely right now from D.C. all the
way up to the Big Apple.


Shawn

micky wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/





I can't prove it, but it's not a conspiracy.

Stupot

Rich:

There are a number of interesting articles and even some videos that take a
slightly different view of global warming other than the "we all need to
drive Yugos" mentality.

One I'd suggest is a program that appeared on the History Channel called
"Little Ice Age: Big Chill", which doesn't argue about the existance of
global warming but does establish that a period of global cooling took place
very recently (in glacial terms!) In addition, there are several good books
on the "little ice age" and "long summer" that preceeded it. Probably the
most interesting point made in most of these is that climate change is never
uniform (hence "global" warming might be at best a bad title), and that
mankind is often poorly prepared to deal with even small climatic changes.
It makes interesting reading. Wonder why Greenland is called Greenland.
Because it used to be green (as in fertile farmland) That was before the
European climate cooled slightly during the "little ice age", and may
suggest (among other things) that we are warming to parity with what the
climate might have been historically.

On a more personal level, I have found that reading a wide variety of stuff
on the subject, including books on the subject of the sun's energy output
and solar cycles has left me with some distinct doubts:

Assume there is global warming, but it is not within our control. What do
we do? For example, suppose variations in the sun's output are to blame.
Will all of use driving electric cars have an impact? As an astronomy
group, I'd think some debate about our nearest and dearest star might be in
order. I am staking out the position that there is considerable variation
in the sun's output, it sems to correlate to sunspots, but it apparently is
not likeley to explain more than a fraction of the (alledged) warming we are
experiencing. But you can bet the major TV networks aren't discussing it.
Too complex to be explained in 30 seconds or less (sound bites).

I live in an area where we have been subjected to "acid rain", a condition
of water quality degridation caused by migrating emissions from (allegedly)
power plants. The condition is real. The cuase is suspect. We've got all
sorts of sulphur dioxide regularions as a result. The condition didn't
improve, and the same "scientists" that promoted that view suddenly
"discovered" that nitrogen compunds were the problem, and more regulations
were the answer. So - is the industrialized world the "global warming"
villan, or maybe the cause is all the methane from Indian cow farts? We
seem to do poorly when we try to move from observation to identifying
causality and remedy. We tend to ascribe causality to association, and
that's a scientific no-no.

Perhaps most disturbing to me (and here's where Rich and I agree some) is
the ease at which everyone jumps on the "global warming" bandwagon to
promote personal and group agendas without regard to any real science. TV
networks clearly at the fore of dumbing down the issue until there is no
science involved. I once saw a "chief science correspondent" for a national
network say a single tornado was caused by global warming. Sensational sells
in TV. Certainly we can agee that regulators see their jobs as
regulating - protecting use from some perceived economic, social, or
environmental harm. Elected legislators (AKA "Politicians") see their jobs
as legislating - passing laws to "protect" us from some perceived harm. In
both cases these groups have a vested interest in having problems to
"solve." I believe that wether or not there really is global warming, these
two groups will serve their self interests by acting as if global warming
exists and acting as if it is a crisis. That means they can ask you and I
for resources to solve the problem (taxes) and distribute the resources to
those most likely to solve the problem (friends who support their view.) I
don't think there is a cure for this one - its like the common cold. Let it
run its course, and about the time the glaciers are creeping into my back
yard the politians will renounce global warming as a hoax created by the
military industrial complex and then embrace the coming ice age as the next
man made problem.

I believe we all need to better understand the science and not react (one
side or the other) to the drivel being handed out by the media and the
politicians. I'd suggest as a start we not react to those with contrary
opinions by shouting them down. Tturn off the TV - read a few good books
(pro and con) on the subject. In this case, I think that Rich (and I) may
have overstated the case to demonstrate a point or two, but there is reason
to agree that his original thesis that there are groups of people and/or
companies who will benefit economically from promoting the existance and
severity of global warming ( or some other crisis). As an economist (well
MBA anyway) I can accept that his position demonsrates simple classic
economic relationships, and therefore should be given respect.



"Rich" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Jan 23, 2:08 am, "micky" wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/

Business is business. How many government-paid parasites of all kinds
are now making a living and career off "global warming?"
One example from the story:
The February report will have "much stronger evidence now of human
actions on the change in climate that's taken place," Rajendra
Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is
the head of the international climate change panel.
Some Indian who in his own country would be lucky to earn $6000/yr as a
climatologist now probably pulls down $150K or more as the head of this
panel. Mark my words, if you don't tow the line on global warming, you
might very well find yourself in a re-education camp.

Pieter Litchfield wrote:
Rich:

There are a number of interesting articles and even some videos that take a
slightly different view of global warming other than the "we all need to
drive Yugos" mentality.

One I'd suggest is a program that appeared on the History Channel called
"Little Ice Age: Big Chill", which doesn't argue about the existance of
global warming but does establish that a period of global cooling took place
very recently (in glacial terms!) In addition, there are several good books
on the "little ice age" and "long summer" that preceeded it. Probably the
most interesting point made in most of these is that climate change is never
uniform (hence "global" warming might be at best a bad title), and that
mankind is often poorly prepared to deal with even small climatic changes.
It makes interesting reading.

Did it mention that the "little Ice Age" of circa 1635-1715 coincided
with an unprecedented reduction in solar activity? Virtually no sunspots
were recorded for 70 years while lakes in England froze through the
summer. American colonists also reported the phenomenon. The connection
between global warming and the sunspot shortage is not firmly
established, but no such decrease in activity has been recorded
recently. Indeed, global warming has been occurring right through
several normal sunspot cycles over the past few decades.

Monday's paper reported that 600 (count 'em, 600) scientists have
gathered to warn the world of the dangers of melting ice caps, ocean
warming, etc. The current El Nino shows that an increase of even a
couple of degrees in the ocean's temperature can have enormous
consequences. Now please don't tell us that these were 600 Indian expats
who are here to make huge incomes. The notion that scientists invented
global warming as a result of peer pressure or income potential is
ridiculous. Who's paying them--the Liberal Conspiracy?

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming; even neocons here in
the US agree on the effect, if not the cause. And anyone who believes
that the History Channel presents scientifically valid programming
hasn't seen their UFO stuff. Or their Atlantis stuff. Or their
Nostradamus stuff.

Bob

Pieter Litchfield wrote:

Rich:

There are a number of interesting articles and even some videos that take a
slightly different view of global warming other than the "we all need to
drive Yugos" mentality.

One I'd suggest is a program that appeared on the History Channel called
"Little Ice Age: Big Chill", which doesn't argue about the existance of
global warming but does establish that a period of global cooling took place
very recently (in glacial terms!)...

The History Channel "establishes" a scientific fact!? It is to laugh.

Would that be the same History Channel that earns its keep by dropping
tantalizing hints about extraterrestrials having built the Pyramids?
About UFO sightings? About the Bermuda Triangle? Atlantis?

The History Channel where everything is a mystery, rhymes with history?
The History Channel of "When UFOs Arrive," "UFO Hot Spots," and "UFOs
in the Bible" fame

I spit on the History Channel.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:28:25 -0500, Davoud wrote:

I spit on the History Channel.

Well, yes, but it doesn't get everything wrong. There have been natural
shifts in climate in historical times; good climate models are starting
to provide insight into their causes. While it is rather obvious that
the majority of the climate change we are currently experiencing is the
result of human activities, a full understanding of climate requires
analyzing natural shifts, too.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jan 24, 6:32 am, "Pieter Litchfield"
wrote:
Rich:


Strangly I don't know of many, if any, scientists making the kind of
money Rich keeps talking about. Most make less than the night manager
at the local 24-hour Walgreens Drug store. The only people saying that
we have to sacrifice everything to keep down CO2 emissions are the
right-wing talkshow hosts. The scientists I work with understand that
they know the science but ddo not know social science or economics.
Only the right wing seems to think they know everything and have the
right to force us to toe the line

My father once explained to me that the right wing wanted government
out of the boardroom and into the bedroom, while the left wing wanted
government out of the bedroom and into the boardroom, while the common
man just wanted the government to do the job it was hired to do