Revisiting junk again

There is no man made global warming.
The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.

Try some science.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts.txt

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm

[George M. Middius]

It's a cosmic joke. It must be.

> There is no man made global warming.
> The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
> The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.

Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're
the troll god created to **** with us.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> It's a cosmic joke. It must be.
>
>> There is no man made global warming.
>> The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
>> The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.
>
> Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're
> the troll god created to **** with us.
>
It actually took me years of usenet to finally understand that there is this
peculiar condition where the person's logical faculties become subordinated
to his personality characteristics. For the afflicted, there is no such
thing as objectivity.

We can visualize the workings of Mikey's brain, or Arny's, in the following
fashion:

1. Brain receives information from outside world.
2. Information is parsed for emotional trigger.
3. Emotional centers activated-->discomfort.
4. Order to cortex: generate defense to quiet emotional agitation.
5. Cortex responds: "I'm sorry, but the logical news is not good. The world
stinks."
6. Emotional center to cortex: "Generate a logical defense NOW!, or I'll
peel you off like an onion.
7. Cortex to emotional center: "In that case, we have 'the world according
to Mikey'. Please don't ask me to stand behind it."
8. Emotional center: "Shut the **** up. If I tell you to prove the world is
flat, you do it, capiche?"
9. Cortex: "Javol, Herr Commandant."
10. Emotional center: "Good. Now I don't like the idea of global waming.
Give me something I can post."
11. Cortex: "Javol. Here is a diatribe. May I go back to sleep?"
12. Emotional center: "You damn well better."

[dave weil]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, > wrote:

>The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.

Are you comparing them to the current Administration?

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.
>
> Are you comparing them to the current Administration?

I don't know.
Check your tree for nails.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 22:15:34 -0500

>It's a cosmic joke. It must be.

Did this guy, or did this guy not, just quote what appears to be the
National Enquirer?

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm

Is this individual really this stupid, or am I being trolled?

>Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're
>the troll god created to **** with us.

Thank you. I don't mind being trolled. Thinking that there really was
somebody that devoid of rational thought, however, would have bothered
me.

This individual is making me believe in after-birth abortions.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 22:15:34 -0500

>It's a cosmic joke. It must be.

Did this guy really just quote the scientific equivalent of _The
National Enquirer_ in a debate?

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm

Am I being trolled, or are there people that are really this stupid?

>Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're
>the troll god created to **** with us.

Oh, thanks. I don't mind getting trolled. Thinking there were people
that were seriously this stupid would have bothered me though.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.
>>
>> Are you comparing them to the current Administration?
>
>I don't know.
>Check your tree for nails.

My tree's tapped as well?

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.
>>>
>>> Are you comparing them to the current Administration?
>>
>>I don't know.
>>Check your tree for nails.
>
> My tree's tapped as well?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.
>>>
>>> Are you comparing them to the current Administration?
>>
>>I don't know.
>>Check your tree for nails.
>
> My tree's tapped as well?

has it been phoning Al-Queda?
Maybe talking to some cedars in Lebanon?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Pooh Bear]

dave weil wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, > wrote:
> >>
> >>>The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare you.
> >>
> >> Are you comparing them to the current Administration?
> >
> >I don't know.
> >Check your tree for nails.
>
> My tree's tapped as well?

The Party has secret microphones everywhere !

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Pooh Bear >
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:00:00 +0000

>The Party has secret microphones everywhere !

The Labour party, no doubt.

It's Clinton's fault.

[Clyde Slick]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
>> >>>you.
>> >>
>> >> Are you comparing them to the current Administration?
>> >
>> >I don't know.
>> >Check your tree for nails.
>>
>> My tree's tapped as well?
>
> The Party has secret microphones everywhere !
>
> Graham
>
>



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:53:07 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT, > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
>> >>>you.
>> >>
>> >> Are you comparing them to the current Administration?
>> >
>> >I don't know.
>> >Check your tree for nails.
>>
>> My tree's tapped as well?
>
> The Party has secret microphones everywhere !

what's a party without secret microphones?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
> net>
> Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 22:15:34 -0500
>
>>It's a cosmic joke. It must be.
>
> Did this guy really just quote the scientific equivalent of _The
> National Enquirer_ in a debate?
>
> http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
>
> Am I being trolled, or are there people that are really this stupid?
>
>>Mickey, you're starting to sway me toward believing in a god. And you're
>>the troll god created to **** with us.
>
> Oh, thanks. I don't mind getting trolled. Thinking there were people
> that were seriously this stupid would have bothered me though.
>
And the stuff from NASA is to be ignored?

Annual mean Temperature Anomalies in .01 C
selected zonal means
source: GHCN 1880-12/2004
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Note: ***** = missing - base period: 1951-1980
Annual Temperature Anomalies (.01 C) -
CR 1200KM

24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S
44S 64S 90S
Year Glob NHem
SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S
Year
1880 -12 -34 11 -43 -16 22 -92 -47 -22 -21 -7
27 47 ***** 1880
1881 -13 -28 2 -37 -5 -10 -96 -44 -9 -15
20 -2 3 ***** 1881
1882 -1 -27 24 -33 -1 17 -133 -22 -8 -18 36
28 14 ***** 1882
1883 -5 -32 23 -45 13 -9 -4 -62 -37 -13
71 -4 10 ***** 1883
1884 -42 -55 -30 -75 -21 -38 -114 -71 -66 -24 -18
-19 -67 ***** 1884
1885 -23 -50 4 -72 -7 -11 -150 -59 -52 -18 26
9 -44 ***** 1885
1886 -26 -37 -14 -55 -7 -25 -144 -41 -32 -10
2 -8 -49 ***** 1886
1887 -46 -55 -37 -80 -24 -32 -184 -89 -26 -18 -43
-24 -23 ***** 1887
1888 -24 -42 -5 -64 2 -19 -129 -76 -24 -9 15
12 -53 ***** 1888
1889 6 -12 23 -23 37 -13 -53 -13 -22 6 77
4 -22 ***** 1889
1890 -22 -25 -20 -41 -10 -18 -96 -56 -2 -2 -22
-22 10 ***** 1890
1891 -56 -41 -70 -52 -56 -44 -109 -44 -38 -26 -109
-34 -41 ***** 1891
1892 -40 -54 -27 -56 -42 -22 -107 -58 -36 -50 -34
-25 9 ***** 1892
1893 -39 -54 -25 -54 -48 -15 -72 -46 -54 -55 -40
-23 27 ***** 1893
1894 -33 -39 -26 -36 -59
9 -81 -34 -18 -42 -79 -2 54 ***** 1894
1895 -33 -41 -25 -46 -40 -10 -69 -49 -30 -34 -47
-15 23 ***** 1895
1896 -27 -37 -18 -47 -35
3 -88 -53 -22 -21 -50 -5 39 ***** 1896
1897 -15 -21 -10 -25 -7 -18 -55 -19 -17 -16
3 -2 -24 ***** 1897
1898 -21 -37 -5 -31 -31 3 -108 -11 -16 -45 -16
30 -23 ***** 1898
1899 -25 -23 -27 -23 -38 -6 -110 -2 -7 -23 -59
10 -13 ***** 1899
1900 -6 -14 1 -15 1 -8 -63 0 -8 -13 16
4 -11 ***** 1900

24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S
44S 64S 90S
Year Glob NHem
SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S
Year
1901 -5 -14 4 -7 -14 7 -40 23 -22 -25 -1
9 29 ***** 1901
1902 -30 -38 -22 -52 -14 -31 -142 -47 -15 -19 -9
-12 -48 ***** 1902
1903 -36 -35 -37 -33 -35 -39 -26 -20 -48 -38 -33
-30 -29 -140 1903
1904 -42 -44 -40 -35 -61 -23 -29 -35 -37 -58 -66
-4 -28 -175 1904
1905 -26 -29 -22 -24 -21 -36 -11 -2 -50 -37 -2
-26 -28 -93 1905
1906 -16 -17 -14 -11 -15 -22 -29
7 -21 -25 -3 -4 -30 -98 1906
1907 -40 -49 -32 -58 -33 -33 -59 -72 -44 -35 -30
-22 -25 -131 1907
1908 -31 -34 -27 -35 -35 -19 -30 -37 -35 -34 -39
-30 18 66 1908
1909 -31 -34 -28 -39 -25 -30 -73 -40 -24 -27 -24
-31 -4 -84 1909
1910 -21 -31 -10 -24 -29 -9 -64 -4 -26 -43 -13
-9 12 28 1910
1911 -26 -26 -26 -22 -30 -24 -13 -20 -27 -32 -28
-26 1 -19 1911
1912 -33 -47 -20 -59 -18 -29 -76 -62 -49 -30 -5
-5 -43 -217 1912
1913 -29 -36 -22 -31 -33 -24 -63 -20 -27 -44 -20
-3 -36 -139 1913
1914 -3 -13 8 -11 -7 11 -62 -1 0 -17 3
27 5 -37 1914
1915 5 1 9 -10 30 -15 -78 -2 12 17 45
16 -41 -269 1915
1916 -21 -29 -13 -32 -11 -24 -69 -42 -8 -25
4 -13 -11 -186 1916
1917 -46 -59 -34 -60 -51 -26 -114 -46 -52 -56 -45
-49 49 29 1917
1918 -35 -39 -31 -40 -39 -24 -116 -19 -28 -38 -41
-20 -7 -15 1918
1919 -9 -24 6 -40 2 6 -77 -55 -13 0 5
18 1 10 1919
1920 -18 -21 -14 -13 -18 -24 24 -5 -33 -34
0 -7 -33 -110 1920

24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S
44S 64S 90S
Year Glob NHem
SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S
Year
1921 -5 -1 -8 11 -10 -15 4 27 0 -20 2
2 -22 -98 1921
1922 -10 -15 -4 -16 -4 -11 -17 -34 -2 -13
7 -6 6 -56 1922
1923 -16 -9 -23 -6 -10 -34 31
0 -23 -14 -5 -17 -48 -59 1923
1924 -11 -7 -16 -6 6 -41 38 -5 -24 -8
22 -35 -21 -148 1924
1925 -15 -1 -29 7 -9 -48 -4
33 -8 -15 -2 -38 -43 -85 1925
1926 4 12 -5 16 13 -22 49 34 -9 6 22
0 -45 -74 1926
1927 -5 1 -12 -4 12 -30 0 -13 2 9
16 -2 -59 -187 1927
1928 0 8 -8 6 18 -30 70 -2 -12 11
26 -2 -47 -304 1928
1929 -22 -17 -27 -27 -3 -40 17 -42 -32
0 -8 -26 -35 -186 1929
1930 -4 12 -19 16 2 -30 65 15 -1 5 -3
6 -68 -333 1930
1931 2 19 -16 19 18 -36 66 9 10 20
15 -30 -20 -81 1931
1932 4 11 -4 17 6 -13 45 29 -2 2 11
2 -15 -137 1932
1933 -11 -17 -5 -23 -2 -14 -9 -42 -12 -10
7 -1 -8 -140 1933
1934 5 17 -7 34 -3 -14 96 46 2 -9
3 -9 8 -87 1934
1935 -8 4 -21 7 4 -40 38 10 -7 0
9 -23 -48 -162 1935
1936 1 8 -6 9 7 -14 39 15 -7 7
7 -11 1 6 1936
1937 11 30 -7 36 16 -18 130 16 17 21
10 -14 -10 66 1937
1938 15 32 -3 56 0 -7 150 51 24 -3 3
8 -9 -121 1938
1939 -2 19 -24 35 -4 -37 71 35
21 -5 -3 -10 -66 -206 1939
1940 14 19 8 23 15 2 98 15 1 13 17
8 13 17 1940

24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S
44S 64S 90S
Year Glob NHem
SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S
Year
1941 11 20 2 8 34 -16 -8 -9 27 39
28 -6 -10 -45 1941
1942 10 15 5 14 19 -7 47 0 13 15 23
6 -4 -125 1942
1943 6 16 -5 39 -12 -5 131 36
4 -19 -4 -12 34 103 1943
1944 10 21 -1 35 2 -5 114 44 -5 0 5
11 -7 -99 1944
1945 -2 3 -7 6 2 -15 60 -6 -5 -1 6
16 -40 -200 1945
1946 0 13 -12 14 5 -19 3 -2 29
11 -1 -6 -33 4 1946
1947 12 19 5 25 14 -3 110 -5 15 11 16
2 6 -7 1947
1948 -3 11 -17 20 1 -31 23 34 8 -2
4 -5 -46 -152 1948
1949 -9 4 -22 10 -2 -39 34 14 -1 -6
2 -4 -53 -278 1949
1950 -18 -12 -24 -8 -18 -28
22 -28 -4 -17 -18 -1 -48 -105 1950
1951 -2 8 -12 9 3 -20 13 6 10
7 -1 -11 -9 -69 1951
1952 3 9 -3 10 13 -16 24 -8 18 8
17 -8 -7 -63 1952
1953 12 31 -8 44 11 -20 102 39 26 12
10 -5 -12 -171 1953
1954 -9 0 -18 6 -10 -24 82 -24
1 -10 -10 -10 -23 -78 1954
1955 -8 -11 -6 -2 -23 5 -29 -10
13 -24 -22 -15 15 121 1955
1956 -18 -30 -6 -33 -28
10 -6 -58 -24 -26 -30 -19 39 66 1956
1957 8 2 13 3 4 17 14 23 -15 0 8
5 21 45 1957
1958 10 17 2 12 24 -12 -18 21 16 24 24
7 -21 -52 1958
1959 5 12 -2 17 11 -15 55 14 5 5 17
8 -40 -41 1959
1960 -2 10 -13 12 1 -18 37 3 10 6 -4
2 -8 -86 1960

24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S
44S 64S 90S
Year Glob NHem
SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S
Year
1961 10 7 12 19 -1 15 -15 38 17 -10 8
23 -7 27 1961
1962 5 12 -2 23 -3 -3 48 34 6 -5 -2
7 21 -62 1962
1963 3 11 -5 14 3 -10 -14 35 10 5
2 -5 -32 11 1963
1964 -25 -24 -27 -31 -11 -38 -67 -31 -19 -12 -9
-30 -42 -54 1964
1965 -15 -19 -11 -22 -11 -13 -30 -26 -16 -15 -8
-13 -15 -6 1965
1966 -8 -4 -11 -15 6 -19 -85 -16 11 11
2 -27 -26 13 1966
1967 -2 -1 -3 7 -13 3 38
25 -16 -14 -11 -3 -4 28 1967
1968 -9 -10 -8 -11 -14 0 -32
1 -12 -8 -20 -13 22 8 1968
1969 0 -3 3 -25 25 -8 -4 -51 -13 30
21 -3 -25 1 1969
1970 4 -1 9 -7 9 10 -21 -12 0 9 8
4 4 39 1970
1971 -10 -17 -3 -9 -26
11 -13 -5 -11 -29 -24 -7 22 48 1971
1972 -5 -24 13 -41 7 13 -38 -60 -27 1 13
11 -11 58 1972
1973 18 13 22 14 21 18 12 25 7 13 29
17 8 36 1973
1974 -6 -16 4 -14 -23 25 -20 -13 -13 -19 -27
3 32 76 1974
1975 -2 -4 0 10 -22 13 16 28 -6 -25 -19
7 10 37 1975
1976 -21 -24 -18 -28 -19 -18 -7 -31 -33 -19 -18
-15 -18 -24 1976
1977 16 16 16 18 12 20 18 25 12 14 11
20 17 25 1977
1978 7 5 10 2 4 18 -19 7 5 10 -2
15 29 9 1978
1979 14 13 14 6 20 13 -63 13 26 25 16
19 26 -21 1979
1980 28 21 35 13 28 43 21 8 13 35 22
34 35 81 1980

24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S
44S 64S 90S
Year Glob NHem
SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S
Year
1981 40 49 31 67 17 44 112 89 32 22 12
25 58 81 1981
1982 9 4 14 -4 14 16 -36 6 1 16 12
23 19 -5 1982
1983 34 35 33 37 40 24 18 73 16 33 47
15 31 40 1983
1984 15 11 18 10 14 20 34 6 4 13 14
3 25 62 1984
1985 13 4 21 1 7 31 28 -25 10 8 6
23 53 26 1985
1986 19 18 19 19 16 21 -2 28 20 17 15
17 39 10 1986
1987 35 35 34 20 55 22 -36 22 41 58 52
26 24 10 1987
1988 42 46 37 50 40 36 60 61 38 39 40
26 19 87 1988
1989 28 32 23 48 8 34 38 76 30 8 8
24 59 27 1989
1990 48 63 34 75 41 32 63 91 67 46 36
23 38 45 1990
1991 44 52 37 59 36 41 81 72 40 41 31
20 38 94 1991
1992 15 18 11 15 26 -1 -16 35 12 22
30 -7 -5 16 1992
1993 19 28 10 22 29 2 59 27 5 35 24
8 15 -33 1993
1994 31 48 15 55 34 5 34 54 63 38 30
19 -2 -25 1994
1995 46 71 22 85 49 3 122 107 53 49 50
13 -9 -5 1995
1996 39 36 41 35 35 48 76 29 24 38 32
8 58 131 1996
1997 40 59 22 66 45 8 77 89 43 48 42
17 15 -25 1997
1998 71 89 54 91 88 30 78 90 96 87 89
30 43 14 1998
1999 45 60 31 81 30 30 50 81 94 29 31
41 41 -12 1999
2000 42 63 21 82 29 21 111 88 65 35 22
21 41 -6 2000

24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S
44S 64S 90S
Year Glob NHem
SHem -90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU -24S -44S -64S
Year
2001 57 76 39 90 49 36 103 88 86 55 43
29 43 39 2001
2002 69 86 52 99 66 42 126 113 77 66 66
31 40 71 2002
2003 67 87 48 101 65 37 145 126 63 65 65
33 36 46 2003
2004 59 80 38 90 56 33 78 108 80 66 46
29 45 23 2004
Year Glob NHem SHem 24N 24S 90S 64N 44N 24N EQU 24S
44S 64S 90S Year
-90N -24N -24S -90N -64N -44N -24N -EQU
-24S -44S -64S

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:26:16 GMT

What prompted you to cut-and-paste this? LOL!

Did you know the annual average temperature in San Juan, Puerto Rico is
80F, while in Karbala, Iraq it is 75F? And that in Death Valley, CA, it
is also 75F?

I'm looking for a nice place to vacation this July. I'd suggest that
Karbala or Death Valley makes much more sense as a temperate vacation
destination. Puerto Rico looks to be too hot. Don't you agree?

Moron.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT

>Try some science.

OK, moron, let's rock! (I've intentionally excluded 'left-leaning'
groups like Greenpeace, bloggers, or other suspect sources. I didn't
want to make the same mistake you did: copying mostly junk journalists
with a specific and obvious bent.)

***WARNING: MANY OF THE FOLLOWING LINKS ARE TO ULTRA LEFT-WING
ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS NASA, THE LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, NOAA,
WMO, SCRIPPS INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY, MIT (not the cable company),
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AND OTHER LIKE 'SUSPECT' RADICAL LEFT-WING
TERRORISTIC COMMUNIST-PINKO ANTI-SCIENCE ANTI-BUSINESS ECO-WHACKO
TREE-HUGGER GROUPS.***

I liked this quote:

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over,
at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it
right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great
to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

I did not add the bit about 'rational people.';-)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

http://www.wmo.ch/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html

WMO= World Meteorological Organisation (and you said meteorologists
don't... never mind)

Here's a press release that's interesting:

http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press670.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/aboutthesite.html

Recent Accomplishments of the USGCRP (US Global Climate Change Research
Program)

Model simulations of changes in climate over the last 100 years match
observed patterns more closely when both greenhouse gases and the
regional concentrations of sulfate aerosols are taken into account.

Arctic ecosystems exposed to elevated levels of carbon dioxide only
increased productivity for a few years, suggesting that the CO2
fertilization effect may be short-lived.

(Compare this last one to nob's Kartoon Science, one which stated: "For
a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto
Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most
important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would
be no green plants at all."

"That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in
carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine,
convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build
with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest
of the planet alive. "

"Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it
even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a
biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas
to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my
fellow scientists." See
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm for the
complete quote. )

Hooray indeed.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2000/ann/ann.html

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov///Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200106064834.html

http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsletter/092605.pdf

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1229_041229_climate_change_consensus.html

"To prove a scientific consensus on global climate change, Oreskes
searched the scientific literature for papers published between 1993
and 2003 with the words "global climate change" in their abstracts. She
found 928.

"Not one of the papers refuted the claim that human activities are
affecting Earth's climate," she said. "

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549346_globewarm11.html

"As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other
man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious
community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as
far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a
profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process.
Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the
same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and
it's going to get worse."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1407585

"Princeton geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer. compares climate skeptics
to tobacco industry scientists who sought for decades to obscure the
link between smoking and lung cancer. Arguing over whether man-made
global warming exists obscures a more important debate over what steps
are possible to moderate its effects, he says."

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2003-11-18-warming-debate_x.htm

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/382_myths.htm (OK, so I
put one in that has an obvious bent to it.)

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/climate-speth.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/global.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2003/co2.html

That should suffice for now.

I don't think that nob will by any of it though.

New data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
studies appearing in two respected scientific journals raise serious
questions about the science underlying alarmist predictions of global
warming.

NASA: Predictions "Exaggerated"
In the March 13 Journal of Climate, Ken Minschwaner of the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology and Andrew Dessler of the University of
Maryland reported on atmospheric research they conducted for NASA.
Discussing the importance of water vapor assumptions in climate models, they
noted, "In most global climate models, an initial warming caused by
additional CO2 and other greenhouse gases leads to enhanced evaporation at
the surface and a general moistening of the atmosphere. Since water vapor is
a strong infrared absorber, the added moisture causes further warming. The
amplifying effect can be quite large, increasing the global average warming
by 70%-90% compared to calculations that maintain a fixed water vapor."

According to the new NASA data, water evaporation has not increased nearly
as much as alarmists have predicted and have factored into their computer
models.

As a result, according to the March 18 New York Times, "Dr. Minschwaner said
the new research raised questions about the high end" of temperature
predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which
estimates the Earth's climate could warm 2.5 to 10º Fahrenheit in the next
century.

According to Environment & Energy Daily, the new data show "predictions
about global warming have exaggerated its potential effects."

"Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our
atmosphere," stated a related March 15 NASA press release, "some climate
forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases."

Stated NASA, "In most computer models relative humidity tends to remain
fixed at current levels. Models that include water vapor feedback with
constant relative humidity predict the Earth's surface will warm nearly
twice as much over the next 100 years as models that contain no water vapor
feedback."

However, "The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not
large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity," NASA quoted
Minschwaner as saying.

"These new findings will be useful for testing and improving global climate
models," said NASA.

Computer Models Fail Test
Another study, published at the same time as the analysis of new NASA data,
also undercut claims that computer models are accurate predictors of future
climate.

The study, published in Climate Research (25:185-190), noted that "an
important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies
is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of
the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios."

In other words, the predictive accuracy of alarmist computer models can be
assessed by feeding past atmospheric data into the models and observing how
well the resulting predictions match up with the current climate. "If this
predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world,"
stated Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, "there is little reason to believe anything else the models
predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface
warming."

Importantly, according to the Climate Research study, "at no time, in any
model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently
observed situation of a large and highly significant surface warming
accompanied with no warming whatsoever aloft."

Moreover, noted the study, "significant errors in the simulations of
globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors
in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas
forcing. Such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation
results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution
studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive
ability of recent generation model simulations."


Read more at: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14871



SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON

And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true
scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the world
signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind
the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure
has grown to over 4000.

He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North
American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global
warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the
end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the
report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft.

Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual
scientific analysis said:

1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate
change to ...man-made causes."

Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the
world - bar none.



read more at: http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm






The Nonsense That Is Global Warming

Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a
meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best
predict the weather. The woman with corns won.

In almost every newspaper around the world and at least once a week,
some report surfaces suggesting we stay worried in the light of latest
figures and analyses. Not only is Global Warming occurring, we are assured,
but it is now accelerating at some alarming rate and pretty soon the poles
will have all melted, the sealevels will have risen and all low-lying atolls
and seaside villages will be covered over with this calamitous rising tide.
And apparently this gigantic catastrophe is due to human behaviour.

We are informed that if our wicked CFC and CO2-producing ways
continue, we will be doomed as a civilisation. Today we are so buffeted by
what is put forth as irrefutable evidential science as to the nature of the
so-called problem, that we don't even think to question it on any basic
level. What is still essentially viewpoints and nothing more, based on tiny
sample data and extrapolated, is now promoted as scientific fact, regardless
of the lack of real evidence. The voices of the many diligent scientists
calling for real hard evidence are drowned out by those who have the ear of
a worldwide media hungry for sensational and emotive headlines.

The Misleading Picture
The result is that the picture many now have is of the Earth heating
up and hotter now than it has ever been. But... 1999 was cooler than the
year before and since 1998 the world has been cooling. The hottest day in
all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922. There was
warming from the 1880s to the 1940s, then a cooling for the next 40 years.
Some of the hottest years were in the 1930s, when builders in Britain began
putting pipes on the outside of buildings because frosts were only a memory.
Then the thermometers turned around and from 1940 right up to 1980, global
mean temperatures fell by about 0.3degC. All those houses in Britain started
getting burst pipes.

Some over-reacted and called it the start of a new Ice Age, due to
global warming. Er..pardon? Yes, a heating up OR cooling down now was,
apparently, because of global warming. The 40 year downturn in temperature
was in spite of supposed rising CO2 levels due to the new industrialisation
after the war, showing then that rising CO2 does NOT fit into the scenario
of Greenhouse gases.

Look outside. Do you see any global catastrophe? Point to an ocean
that is rising. Point to a methane cloud. Demonstate in any lab how CO2
could rise or significantly increase in the atmosphere and therefore be
harmful.

Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would
only be 0.07%. We can all live with that. 99.9% of all the world's CO2 is at
ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans.

Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The
molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a
MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to
rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.' Wind and diffusion can transport gases
but that is to do with mother nature, not man, and the warmers are claiming
a rising of gases is taking place due purely to humans and quite apart from
wind, thermals, tornadoes and whatever else the processes of nature will do.
Our question is, what can possibly make heavier than air gases rise 20 miles
to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increase the constant
water-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover that enables life to continue to
thrive at an average temperature of 13-15degC on the surface of this planet?

CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. A
party balloon blown up with the breath would fly straight upwards as if it
was filled with helium. Moreover CO2 dissolves in seawater. More CO2
produced just means more is going to dissolve. Scientists are still trying
to find out the finer points of how it gets from the sea to the trees. They
know of the great cycle in which land goes under other land, heats and spews
out as volcanoes. CO2 is thrown out and drifts with rain to ground, gets
into trees as CO2 and into rocks as CO3, than finds its way back to the sea,
then into chalk, which is compressed plankton, and then to the seafloor
which becomes part of the continental drift which produces volcanoes at its
extremities. CO2 is kept aloft by upper level turbulence. Otherwise it is
always drifting down, not up. CO2 is found in centuries-old ice in
Antarctica, way before any industrialisation on Earth. It is a natural part
of the atmosphere and as such has a stable cycle of its own.

Fact: The atmosphere on the planet Venus is 100% CO2, produced
entirely from volcanoes. Because it is closer to the Sun , its atmosphere is
in turmoil all the time. On the other hand Mars, also with a CO2 atmosphere
is so frigid its polar caps are solid CO2, which we call dry ice. The
coldness comes purely because Mars is further from the Sun . If CO2 alone
heated planets up, Mars would be much warmer than it is.




read more at: http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT
>
>>Try some science.
>
snip all the misleading stuff.

Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196

Real Climate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate
scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a
quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes
missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to
scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic
implications of the science.
If you would like to contact us, suggest a topic to be covered, contribute a
relevant commentary, or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis,
please email RealClimate (replace -at- with @).

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT

>Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW.

>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196

OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing
*against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global
warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of the
site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon):

"#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is
caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges.
Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global
warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in
the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source
of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of
scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature
increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that
human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected
warming."

And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office):

"The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from
long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is becoming
clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and
deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these human
activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future,
scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate
among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How
much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional
and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the
warming on natural ecosystems and people?"

And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding
the 'Hockey Stick'):

"MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely
upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean
temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.

This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other
dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate
evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence
indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play
a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's
surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this
conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution
Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century
climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art
models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic
forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."

Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've
held, have you simply been trolling me all along?

If so, why?

The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global
warming exists and that the main component of global warming is
man-made.

But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this
'disagreement' was about when we actually agree?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT
>
>>Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW.
>
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196
>
> OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing
> *against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global
> warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of the
> site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon):
>
> "#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is
> caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges.
> Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global
> warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in
> the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source
> of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> (IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of
> scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature
> increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that
> human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected
> warming."
>
You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site
you linked from are you?

I find no such link.


> And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office):
>
> "The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from
> long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is becoming
> clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and
> deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these human
> activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future,
> scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate
> among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How
> much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional
> and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the
> warming on natural ecosystems and people?"
>
> And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding
> the 'Hockey Stick'):
>
> "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely
> upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean
> temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.
>

Nice try, but that does not appear on page found at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196


> This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other
> dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate
> evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence
> indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play
> a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's
> surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this
> conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution
> Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century
> climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art
> models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic
> forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
> concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."
>
> Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've
> held, have you simply been trolling me all along?
>
> If so, why?
>
> The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global
> warming exists and that the main component of global warming is
> man-made.
>
> But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this
> 'disagreement' was about when we actually agree?
>
You're wierd.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
: oups.com...
: > From: >
: > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT
: >
: >>Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW.
: >
: >>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196
: >
: > OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing
: > *against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global
: > warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of the
: > site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon):
: >
: > "#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is
: > caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges.
: > Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global
: > warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in
: > the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source
: > of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
: > (IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of
: > scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature
: > increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that
: > human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected
: > warming."
: >
: You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site
: you linked from are you?
:
: I find no such link.
:
:
: > And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office):
: >
: > "The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from
: > long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is becoming
: > clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and
: > deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these human
: > activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future,
: > scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate
: > among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How
: > much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional
: > and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the
: > warming on natural ecosystems and people?"
: >
: > And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding
: > the 'Hockey Stick'):
: >
: > "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely
: > upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean
: > temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.
: >
:
: Nice try, but that does not appear on page found at
: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196
:
:
: > This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other
: > dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate
: > evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence
: > indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play
: > a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's
: > surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this
: > conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution
: > Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century
: > climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art
: > models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic
: > forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
: > concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."
: >
: > Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've
: > held, have you simply been trolling me all along?
: >
: > If so, why?
: >
: > The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global
: > warming exists and that the main component of global warming is
: > man-made.
: >
: > But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this
: > 'disagreement' was about when we actually agree?
: >
: You're wierd.
:
second link on page 196:
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and
aerosols
among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m2 more
energy
from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise
measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.
Implications include:
(i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further
change of
atmospheric composition;
(ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying
the need
for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and
(iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.
..................
as i've mentioned before, there _is no_ arguing with heat balance measurements
made
from space, specific distribution on earth does not matter in calculations in
that case

so yes, there is warming taking place, no possible doubt there

evidently, the real worry is not a couple of centigrades rise in a couple of
centuries,
it's the idea of a runaway, a positive feedback scenario that cannot be undone
the _venus meltdown syndrome_ if ya like :-)

as mentioned before, there are many chemical and biochemical negative feedback
systems in place on this planet, but they respond* on a century and millenium
scale,
so maybe 500 years from now, a new equilibrium is reached,
but can we absorb the effect of such a long changeover (having to give up
100.000s km^2 of coastal areas, redistribution of 'fine climate areas' across the
globe,
large cities currently at near sea-level, etc. etc.)?

*significantly

like Oppenheimer said:
"Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists
obscures a more important debate over what steps
are possible to moderate its effects"

CO2 paranoia not being part of my coctail of solutions
Governments using tax instruments to encourage energy-efficient technology
to develop is a good start,
(as in reductions, _not_ penalties:)

Rudy

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:27:24 GMT

>>You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site
>>you linked from are you?

Maybe it would be easier for this discussion if you could show some
quotes from realclimate that you feel support your position. I am of
the opinion that any brain-dead moron would read that site and come to
the unequivocal understanding that it argues exactly 180 degree from
your position.

Yes, what I quoted is representative. I'm even giving you more. There
is NOT a lot of disagreement about it on that site.

Have you had a CAT scan recently?

This is typical of that site, not the links it refers you to
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=91) (regarding George Will and
Michael Crichton's novel)

"Remarkably - considering he is frequently writes as an historian
- Will also repeats the historically inaccurate claim that "30
years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling" . We
provide a more detailed response to this and other errors in another
post. Here, we merely point out that there is abundant scientific
evidence that global warming is real, that global warming has resulted
in a rise in global sea-level, and that global warming has led to
recession of glaciers in virtually all corners of the world. These
issues have been carefully examined by several national and
international scientific organizations, and it would have been easy for
Will to read this literature, rather than simply taking the words of
characters in Crichton's novel at face value. In addition to the
scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) (essentially a comprehensive review of the literature on the
subject) we refer the reader to statements by the American Geophysical
Union, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American
Meteorological Society:"

And this (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229) (last paragraph):

"Our correspondents at the Montreal climate negotiations which
concluded last week report that Esper et al was given a lot of play by
the inaction lobby. The only major news outlet to pick up on the story,
though was Fox News, whose report by "Junk Science" columnist Steve
Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as
science journalism. Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an
opinion piece, not a research article. He also fails to mention that
Esper et al do not actually conclude that a downward revision in the
importance of CO2 actually is necessary; they only attempt to say
(albeit based on faulty logic) what would happen if higher estimates of
climate variation proved right. Milloy also fails to note the final
quote supporting Kyoto, for what that's worth. Of course, it is too
much to expect that Milloy would look into other papers on the subject
to see if there might be something wrong with the reasoning in Esper et
al."

Realclimate obviously thinks that the junkscience site and its authors
are garbage propagandists (I agree). Let's not forget you tried to
quote junkscience as a relevant source to prove you point. Remember?
Here. I'll help you:

-Begin quote-
From: > -
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT
There is no man made global warming.
The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
you.
Try some science.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts.txt
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
-end quote-

You quote junkscience. TWICE. Realclimate is not too enamored of his
reasoning abilities.

Moron.

>>I find no such link.

You can't grow brains, remember? The quivering gelatinous clump that
passes for your brain does not seem too capable of registering much.

Wow. Anybody reading that site could ONLY come up with the conclusion
that global warming is real, and that man-made factors are a huge
contributor to it. The only other possible answer is that you're
actually brain-dead. Let's call Frist to be sure... LOL!

OK, here are your links from the real climate site:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

>> This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other
>> dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate
>> evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence
>> indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play
>> a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's
>> surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this
>> conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution
>> Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century
>> climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art
>> models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic
>> forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
>> concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."

Now, you claimed you wanted to use 'science' (here, let me help your
addled brain remember):
"There is no man made global warming.
The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
you.
Try some science. "

Remember?

OK, now go the 'science links' at the real climate site (right side
of page). Click the VERY FIRST ONE (AIP global warming). Click the
links page there. The quotes you seek are right there.
(http://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm)

>You're wierd.

OK, I'm weird. Shall we now debate why being weird is very much better
than being really, really stupid?

My god. I was actually happy when I thought you were trolling me. Now
I'm even more frightened for your children's mental health. They
haven't got a prayer. Jeeezus.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Ruud Broens" >
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:35:35 +0100

>like Oppenheimer said:
>"Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists
>obscures a more important debate over what steps
>are possible to moderate its effects"

Rudy, after reading the realclimate site, do you get ANY indication
that they are in favor of statements like these?

"There is no man made global warming.
The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
you."

I don't see it, but maybe I'm nuts.

[Ruud Broens]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
: From: "Ruud Broens" >
: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:35:35 +0100
:
: >like Oppenheimer said:
: >"Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists
: >obscures a more important debate over what steps
: >are possible to moderate its effects"
:
: Rudy, after reading the realclimate site, do you get ANY indication
: that they are in favor of statements like these?
:
: "There is no man made global warming.
: The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
: The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
: you."
:
: I don't see it, but maybe I'm nuts.

These are all proxies, measured heat balance makes warming a fact.
Several historical proxies exist, where overlapping in period good
correspondence of data from strata, ice core air inclusions, lake
sediments, tree yearrings, etc, etc. is observed. this inspires
confidence in the modeled temperatures, recorded history is very
short of course :-)
so, if the ice air inclusion for period X shows a near-sulphates free,
low CO2 atmosphere, some other indicator says sunspot activity
is low, calculating the earth's rotational axis direction for X,
if the model shows: "ice age, minus 22 to 38 centigrade at location
Y" it'd be somewhat embarrassing to find in the geological strata
there, say, palm tree seeds :-)

so we have temperature-by-proxy graphs that tell us it has been
all over the map, historically,
air composition over a huge timespan known
pretty much the same story

'single shot' events such as impacting > 5 km diameter stuff
has drastic effects, not easily modeled

so nature made climatic change can be rather large
but we may assume the cro-magnon had better stuff to do than
keep temperature records, so not much recorded by humans,
yet.

it is the rate of change presently that - other than in cataclysmic
periods- has no historical equivalent
err..
;-)
Rudy

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> :
> : "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> message
> : oups.com...
> : > From: >
> : > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:07:34 GMT
> : >
> : >>Here's the most reliable source I've found for discussion of GW.
> : >
> : >>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196
> : >
> : > OK, so now you have me totally confused. I thought you were arguing
> : > *against* man-made causes for global warming, or even that global
> : > warming did not exist. The links this site recommends to readers of
> the
> : > site includes this (from Carnegie-Mellon):
> : >
> : > "#3 There is scientific consensus that global warming is real, is
> : > caused by human activities, and presents serious challenges.
> : > Scientists working on this issue report that the observed global
> : > warming cannot be explained by natural variations such as changes in
> : > the sun's output or volcanic eruptions. The most authoritative source
> : > of information is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> : > (IPCC) which draws upon the collective wisdom of many hundreds of
> : > scientists from around the world. The IPCC projects global temperature
> : > increases of 3 to 10 degrees F in the next 100 years and says that
> : > human activity is the cause of most of the observed and projected
> : > warming."
> : >
> : You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web
> site
> : you linked from are you?
> :
> : I find no such link.
> :
> :
> : > And this (From the US Global Change Resource Information Office):
> : >
> : > "The threat of global warming is a real issue. It is clear from
> : > long-term temperature records that the world is warming. It is
> becoming
> : > clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and
> : > deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming. Since these
> human
> : > activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future,
> : > scientists predict that the earth will continue warming. The debate
> : > among scientists who study climate centers around questions like: How
> : > much warming? How fast will the earth warm? What will be the regional
> : > and seasonal patterns of the warming? What will be the impact of the
> : > warming on natural ecosystems and people?"
> : >
> : > And this (from the Real Climate site itself, Myths vs. Fact Regarding
> : > the 'Hockey Stick'):
> : >
> : > "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests
> entirely
> : > upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean
> : > temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.
> : >
> :
> : Nice try, but that does not appear on page found at
> : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=196
> :
> :
> : > This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other
> : > dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate
> : > evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence
> : > indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play
> : > a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's
> : > surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this
> : > conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution
> : > Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century
> : > climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art
> : > models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic
> : > forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
> : > concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."
> : >
> : > Since it appears that you are arguing *for* the position that I've
> : > held, have you simply been trolling me all along?
> : >
> : > If so, why?
> : >
> : > The argument, as far as I can see, is over: we agree that global
> : > warming exists and that the main component of global warming is
> : > man-made.
> : >
> : > But you still have me very confused. Can you tell me what all of this
> : > 'disagreement' was about when we actually agree?
> : >
> : You're wierd.
> :
> second link on page 196:
> Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases
> and
> aerosols
> among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15
> W/m2 more
> energy
> from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by
> precise
> measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.
> Implications include:
> (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without
> further
> change of
> atmospheric composition;
> (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings,
> implying
> the need
> for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change;
> and
> (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level
> rise.
> .................
> as i've mentioned before, there _is no_ arguing with heat balance
> measurements
> made
> from space, specific distribution on earth does not matter in calculations
> in
> that case
>
> so yes, there is warming taking place, no possible doubt there
>

I'm not arguing that there isn't, only about the cause.

> evidently, the real worry is not a couple of centigrades rise in a couple
> of
> centuries,
> it's the idea of a runaway, a positive feedback scenario that cannot be
> undone
> the _venus meltdown syndrome_ if ya like :-)
>
There is no evidence of that happening and no proof whatsoever that humans
COULD cause it.

> as mentioned before, there are many chemical and biochemical negative
> feedback
> systems in place on this planet, but they respond* on a century and
> millenium
> scale,
> so maybe 500 years from now, a new equilibrium is reached,
> but can we absorb the effect of such a long changeover (having to give up
> 100.000s km^2 of coastal areas, redistribution of 'fine climate areas'
> across the
> globe,
> large cities currently at near sea-level, etc. etc.)?
>
> *significantly
>
> like Oppenheimer said:
> "Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists
> obscures a more important debate over what steps
> are possible to moderate its effects"
>
> CO2 paranoia not being part of my coctail of solutions
> Governments using tax instruments to encourage energy-efficient technology
> to develop is a good start,
> (as in reductions, _not_ penalties:)
>
But the only effect would be economic harm to the U.S. and other industrial
countries and nothing done to the countries that use the most dirty fuels
and causing much of the alleged problem.

The U. S. has the strictest regulation on air quality control of any country
or close to it.


>
>
>
>
>

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> : From: "Ruud Broens" >
> : Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:35:35 +0100
> :
> : >like Oppenheimer said:
> : >"Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists
> : >obscures a more important debate over what steps
> : >are possible to moderate its effects"
> :
> : Rudy, after reading the realclimate site, do you get ANY indication
> : that they are in favor of statements like these?
> :
> : "There is no man made global warming.
> : The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
> : The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
> : you."
> :
> : I don't see it, but maybe I'm nuts.
>
> These are all proxies, measured heat balance makes warming a fact.
> Several historical proxies exist, where overlapping in period good
> correspondence of data from strata, ice core air inclusions, lake
> sediments, tree yearrings, etc, etc. is observed. this inspires
> confidence in the modeled temperatures, recorded history is very
> short of course :-)
> so, if the ice air inclusion for period X shows a near-sulphates free,
> low CO2 atmosphere, some other indicator says sunspot activity
> is low, calculating the earth's rotational axis direction for X,
> if the model shows: "ice age, minus 22 to 38 centigrade at location
> Y" it'd be somewhat embarrassing to find in the geological strata
> there, say, palm tree seeds :-)
>
> so we have temperature-by-proxy graphs that tell us it has been
> all over the map, historically,
> air composition over a huge timespan known
> pretty much the same story
>
> 'single shot' events such as impacting > 5 km diameter stuff
> has drastic effects, not easily modeled
>
> so nature made climatic change can be rather large
> but we may assume the cro-magnon had better stuff to do than
> keep temperature records, so not much recorded by humans,
> yet.
>
> it is the rate of change presently that - other than in cataclysmic
> periods- has no historical equivalent
> err..
> ;-)
> Rudy
>
The most relaiable data shows that there is no big change in mean temprature
and that what there is happend before in the 1940's.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
:
::: "Ruud Broens" > wrote
::: measured heat balance makes warming a fact.

: The most relaiable data shows that there is no big change in mean temprature
: and that what there is happend before in the 1940's.
:
read loop 100 times:
<measured heat balance makes warming a fact
>
&
report back,
private Mike
;-)
R.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:27:24 GMT
>
>>>You're not trying to say that the above is representative on the web site
>>>you linked from are you?
>
> Maybe it would be easier for this discussion if you could show some
> quotes from realclimate that you feel support your position. I am of
> the opinion that any brain-dead moron would read that site and come to
> the unequivocal understanding that it argues exactly 180 degree from
> your position.
>
> Yes, what I quoted is representative. I'm even giving you more. There
> is NOT a lot of disagreement about it on that site.
>
> Have you had a CAT scan recently?
>
> This is typical of that site, not the links it refers you to
> (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=91) (regarding George Will and
> Michael Crichton's novel)
>
> "Remarkably - considering he is frequently writes as an historian
> - Will also repeats the historically inaccurate claim that "30
> years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling" . We
> provide a more detailed response to this and other errors in another
> post. Here, we merely point out that there is abundant scientific
> evidence that global warming is real, that global warming has resulted
> in a rise in global sea-level, and that global warming has led to
> recession of glaciers in virtually all corners of the world. These
> issues have been carefully examined by several national and
> international scientific organizations, and it would have been easy for
> Will to read this literature, rather than simply taking the words of
> characters in Crichton's novel at face value. In addition to the
> scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> (IPCC) (essentially a comprehensive review of the literature on the
> subject) we refer the reader to statements by the American Geophysical
> Union, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American
> Meteorological Society:"
>
> And this (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229) (last paragraph):
>
> "Our correspondents at the Montreal climate negotiations which
> concluded last week report that Esper et al was given a lot of play by
> the inaction lobby. The only major news outlet to pick up on the story,
> though was Fox News, whose report by "Junk Science" columnist Steve
> Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as
> science journalism. Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an
> opinion piece, not a research article. He also fails to mention that
> Esper et al do not actually conclude that a downward revision in the
> importance of CO2 actually is necessary; they only attempt to say
> (albeit based on faulty logic) what would happen if higher estimates of
> climate variation proved right. Milloy also fails to note the final
> quote supporting Kyoto, for what that's worth. Of course, it is too
> much to expect that Milloy would look into other papers on the subject
> to see if there might be something wrong with the reasoning in Esper et
> al."
>
> Realclimate obviously thinks that the junkscience site and its authors
> are garbage propagandists (I agree). Let's not forget you tried to
> quote junkscience as a relevant source to prove you point. Remember?
> Here. I'll help you:
>
> -Begin quote-
> From: > -
> Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:21 GMT
> There is no man made global warming.
> The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
> The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
> you.
> Try some science.
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html
> http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts.txt
> http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html
> http://www.climateaudit.org/
> http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
> -end quote-
>
> You quote junkscience. TWICE. Realclimate is not too enamored of his
> reasoning abilities.
>
> Moron.
>
>>>I find no such link.
>
> You can't grow brains, remember? The quivering gelatinous clump that
> passes for your brain does not seem too capable of registering much.
>
> Wow. Anybody reading that site could ONLY come up with the conclusion
> that global warming is real, and that man-made factors are a huge
> contributor to it. The only other possible answer is that you're
> actually brain-dead. Let's call Frist to be sure... LOL!
>
> OK, here are your links from the real climate site:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
>
>>> This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other
>>> dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate
>>> evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence
>>> indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play
>>> a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's
>>> surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this
>>> conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution
>>> Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century
>>> climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art
>>> models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic
>>> forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
>>> concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."
>
> Now, you claimed you wanted to use 'science' (here, let me help your
> addled brain remember):
> "There is no man made global warming.
> The Ice caps are not doing anything unusual.
> The eco terrorists won't get you to do anything if they don't scare
> you.
> Try some science. "
>
> Remember?
>
> OK, now go the 'science links' at the real climate site (right side
> of page). Click the VERY FIRST ONE (AIP global warming). Click the
> links page there. The quotes you seek are right there.
> (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm)
>
>>You're wierd.
>
> OK, I'm weird. Shall we now debate why being weird is very much better
> than being really, really stupid?
>
If you beleive in GW you're both.

> My god. I was actually happy when I thought you were trolling me. Now
> I'm even more frightened for your children's mental health. They
> haven't got a prayer. Jeeezus.
>
Nope, they're probably going to Atheists too.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote

: > second link on page 196:
: > Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases
: > and
: > aerosols
: > among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15
: > W/m2 more
: > energy
: > from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by
: > precise
: > measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.
: > Implications include:
: > (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without
: > further
: > change of
: > atmospheric composition;
: > (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings,
: > implying
: > the need
: > for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change;
: > and
: > (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level
: > rise.
: > .................
: > as i've mentioned before, there _is no_ arguing with heat balance
: > measurements
: > made
: > from space, specific distribution on earth does not matter in calculations
: > in
: > that case
: >
: > so yes, there is warming taking place, no possible doubt there
: >
:
: I'm not arguing that there isn't, only about the cause.

thanks for the 'wrap up' ;-)
:
: > evidently, the real worry is not a couple of centigrades rise in a couple
: > of
: > centuries,
: > it's the idea of a runaway, a positive feedback scenario that cannot be
: > undone
: > the _venus meltdown syndrome_ if ya like :-)
: >
: There is no evidence of that happening and no proof whatsoever that humans
: COULD cause it.

you think? just explode a dozen hydrogen bombs*, see what happens
(although, granted, climate considerations will not likely be on the top
of your mind, then)
* interestingly enough, the first above Megaton Hbomb was called Mike

: > as mentioned before, there are many chemical and biochemical negative
: > feedback
: > systems in place on this planet, but they respond* on a century and
: > millenium
: > scale,
: > so maybe 500 years from now, a new equilibrium is reached,
: > but can we absorb the effect of such a long changeover (having to give up
: > 100.000s km^2 of coastal areas, redistribution of 'fine climate areas'
: > across the
: > globe,
: > large cities currently at near sea-level, etc. etc.)?
: >
: > *significantly
: >
: > like Oppenheimer said:
: > "Arguing over whether man-made global warming exists
: > obscures a more important debate over what steps
: > are possible to moderate its effects"
: >
: > CO2 paranoia not being part of my coctail of solutions
: > Governments using tax instruments to encourage energy-efficient technology
: > to develop is a good start,
: > (as in reductions, _not_ penalties:)
: >
: But the only effect would be economic harm to the U.S. and other industrial
: countries

prove it. or should we talk about your market self regulating stuff ? :-)

and nothing done to the countries that use the most dirty fuels
: and causing much of the alleged problem.
:
: The U. S. has the strictest regulation on air quality control of any country
: or close to it.
:
:-)
religion takes the weirdest shapes and forms, eh ?
R.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:13:21 GMT

>But the only effect would be economic harm to the U.S. and other industrial
>countries and nothing done to the countries that use the most dirty fuels
>and causing much of the alleged problem.

Oh, it's a POCKETBOOK thing again. "Keep your hands off my money! It's
MINE!"

Why didn't you just say so?

Fine. Let's not do Kyoto. We can set our own reduction targets then,
right? Why aren't we?

Oh. That's right. You think 'junkscience' is real science. Apparently
so does Bushie.

(Note to Europeans and the rest of the world: you've wondered how Bush,
et al could possibly get elected in the US. You're seeing an example of
his 'base' and the 'intelligence' thereof first-hand.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Ruud Broens" >
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:43:00 +0100

>religion takes the weirdest shapes and forms, eh ?

Many Americans worship the dollar, but most do not seem to take it to
the extreme that nob does.

Many Americans, however, do not seem to understand science. That
explains the adherents of Intelligent Design, and more specifically,
people like nob.

Perhaps we've found the missing link that will show the ID people that
evolution really does occur: someone that presumably has all the
physical traits of a modern human, but which has the mental capacity of
a distant ancestor (like australopithecus).

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> :
> ::: "Ruud Broens" > wrote
> ::: measured heat balance makes warming a fact.
>
> : The most relaiable data shows that there is no big change in mean
> temprature
> : and that what there is happend before in the 1940's.
> :
> read loop 100 times:
> <measured heat balance makes warming a fact
>>
1-2 degrees per 100 years.

Nothing that can't be accounted for as a normal trend in weather.

The whole GW hysteria is similar to the hysteria over DDT.

DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was
banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are
that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding it
are plain B.S.

[Clyde Slick]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was
>> banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are
>> that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding
>> it
>> are plain B.S.
>
> God you're stupid.
>
> The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by
> it.
>
> In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no longer
> effective !
>

Don't worry!

maybe we will evolve to accept increasing amounts of carbon dioxide!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Pooh Bear >
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:27:40 +0000

(Regarding nob)

>God you're stupid.

It is amazing, isn't it?

[Ruud Broens]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
:
:
: wrote:
:
: > DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was
: > banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are
: > that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding it
: > are plain B.S.
:
: God you're stupid.
:
: The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by it.
:
: In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no longer
: effective !
:
: Graham
:
don't you know, it's a technique invented by Mike, called
spread spectrum BS claiming ?
;-)
R.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Ruud Broens" >
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:03:14 +0100

>don't you know, it's a technique invented by Mike, called
>spread spectrum BS claiming ?

I'm sorry, Rudy, but you're wrong.

Nob is not bright enough to know what he's doing, let alone actually
invent a technique.

No, nob's 'technique' is simply known as 'pure stupidity.'

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was
>> banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are
>> that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding
>> it
>> are plain B.S.
>
> God you're stupid.
>
> The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by
> it.
>
> In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no longer
> effective !
>
> Graham
>
>
Sorry to diagree with you, but there are still people saying that DDT is
effective and there was a report on ABC a few weeks ago that had that notion
confirmed by some functionary of the U.S. government as she explained why we
won't make the stuff to be sold in countries where it would be useful.

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was
>> banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are
>> that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding
>> it
>> are plain B.S.
>
> God you're stupid.
>
> The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by
> it.
>
> In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no longer
> effective !
>
> Graham
>
>
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito

The most effective solutions for malaria control efforts in the third world
are: mosquito nets (klamboe), insecticide-laced mosquito nets, and DDT. [3]
Plain mosquito nets are cheap, they are completely effective in protecting
humans within the net, they do not adversely affect the health of natural
predators such as dragonflies, and do not require sophisticated public
health capacity on the part of the government.



Or you can check here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html

The following is adapted from a presentation by Donald R. Roberts, Ph.D.,
Professor of Tropical Public Health at the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. Roberts's talk, titled "DDT and
Malaria Control: Past, Present, and Future," was given to a conference
sponsored by Accuracy in Media in Washington, D.C., in October 2002. His
views do not represent the official position of the University, the
Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.



However, to actually understand how it works we must think in terms of
probabilities of events, and introduce the multiplication law of
probabilities. Let's assume that each of the three actions (repellent,
irritant, and toxic) function at a level of 50 percent. Let's also assume
that there are 100 mosquitoes that will enter a house if it is not sprayed.
If the house is sprayed, 50 percent will not enter. That leaves 50
mosquitoes that will go inside the house. Of these 50 mosquitoes, 50 percent
will be irritated and exit without biting. This leaves only 25 that will
remain indoors and bite. Of these 25 mosquitoes, 50 percent will absorb a
toxic dose of DDT and die.

So, even if the separate actions of DDT function at only a 50 percent level
of effectiveness, the combined impact will reduce the success of entering,
biting and surviving by 88 to 89 percent, and roughly 86 percent of the
total impact will be the result of repellent and irritant actions; only 14
percent of the impact will be due to DDT toxicity.

How does this relate to the real world of malaria and malaria control?
Published works suggest that the level of effectiveness of separate actions
of DDT residues will vary from one species of malaria vector to another.
However, the repellent action alone is invariably above the 50 percent level
of effectiveness. Field studies have shown that DDT residues repel 95 to 97
percent of major malaria mosquitoes in the Americas. Field experiments are
often so overwhelmed by the repellent action that researchers cannot even
measure the impact of irritant and toxic actions of DDT residues. . . .



Sorry Graham, but you are wrong on this one.

[Pooh Bear]

wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it was
> >> banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts are
> >> that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria surrounding
> >> it
> >> are plain B.S.
> >
> > God you're stupid.
> >
> > The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by
> > it.
> >
> > In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no longer
> > effective !
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> Sorry to diagree with you, but there are still people

What kind of ppl ?

> saying that DDT is
> effective and there was a report on ABC a few weeks ago that had that notion
> confirmed by some functionary of the U.S. government as she explained why we
> won't make the stuff to be sold in countries where it would be useful.

Considering it didn't work the first time there was an attempt to eradicate
malaria this way, I fail to see the point of repeating the exercise other than
to put additional profits in the bank accounts of the manufacturers.

If it worked I'd expect it to be used in India. They don't worry too much about
licenses, yet it's not used there.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> DDT is the most effective mosquitio repellant there is and because it
>> >> was
>> >> banned some 1 million people a year die from malaria, when the facts
>> >> are
>> >> that when used properly it is very safe and that the hysteria
>> >> surrounding
>> >> it
>> >> are plain B.S.
>> >
>> > God you're stupid.
>> >
>> > The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by
>> > it.
>> >
>> > In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no
>> > longer
>> > effective !
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>>
>> Sorry to diagree with you, but there are still people
>
> What kind of ppl ?
>
The one I'm referring to was I believe from the Agriculture dept. but I'm
not sure.
She said the main reason we don't provide DDT to African countries is
because it would look bad for us to sell something we don't use ourselves,
in spite of the fact that the reasons for its being banned were spurious.

>> saying that DDT is
>> effective and there was a report on ABC a few weeks ago that had that
>> notion
>> confirmed by some functionary of the U.S. government as she explained why
>> we
>> won't make the stuff to be sold in countries where it would be useful.
>
> Considering it didn't work the first time there was an attempt to
> eradicate
> malaria this way, I fail to see the point of repeating the exercise other
> than
> to put additional profits in the bank accounts of the manufacturers.
>
I don't know about eradicating Malaria, but as I stated it is recognized as
the best REPELLANT of mosquitos known.

> If it worked I'd expect it to be used in India. They don't worry too much
> about
> licenses, yet it's not used there.
>
> Graham

I'm only telling what was in the report and what I have found elsewhere.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: >

: >> > God you're stupid.
: >> >
: >> > The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't affected by
: >> > it.
: >> >
: >> > In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no
: >> > longer
: >> > effective !
: >> >
: >> > Graham
: >>
: >>
: >> Sorry to diagree with you, but there are still people
: >
: > What kind of ppl ?
: >
: The one I'm referring to was I believe from the Agriculture dept. but I'm
: not sure.
: She said the main reason we don't provide DDT to African countries is
: because it would look bad for us to sell something we don't use ourselves,
: in spite of the fact that the reasons for its being banned were spurious.
:
: >> saying that DDT is
: >> effective and there was a report on ABC a few weeks ago that had that
: >> notion
: >> confirmed by some functionary of the U.S. government as she explained why
: >> we
: >> won't make the stuff to be sold in countries where it would be useful.
: >
: > Considering it didn't work the first time there was an attempt to
: > eradicate
: > malaria this way, I fail to see the point of repeating the exercise other
: > than
: > to put additional profits in the bank accounts of the manufacturers.
: >
: I don't know about eradicating Malaria, but as I stated it is recognized as
: the best REPELLANT of mosquitos known.
:
: > If it worked I'd expect it to be used in India. They don't worry too much
: > about
: > licenses, yet it's not used there.
: >
: > Graham
:
: I'm only telling what was in the report and what I have found elsewhere.

ok, some reporting on DDT:
...... googling ddt + "genetic damage" :15.9 K links...
1st one
http://www.cetos.org/articles/whygenes.html ddt bad 4 birds, mike
2nd one
http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp
Silent Spring took Carson four years to complete. It meticulously described
how DDT entered the food chain and accumulated in the fatty tissues of
animals, including human beings, and caused cancer and genetic damage.
A single application on a crop, she wrote, killed insects for weeks and
months, and not only the targeted insects but countless more, and
remained toxic in the environment even after it was diluted by rainwater.
Carson concluded that DDT and other pesticides had irrevocably harmed
birds and animals and had contaminated the entire world food supply.
The book's most haunting and famous chapter, "A Fable for Tomorrow,"
depicted a nameless American town where all life -- from fish to birds
to apple blossoms to human children -- had been "silenced" by the
insidious effects of DDT.

etc. etc.
you've got your work cut out, McK, 15.898 links too check ;-)

Rudy
reality checker

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Ruud Broens" >
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:19:49 +0100

>etc. etc.
>you've got your work cut out, McK, 15.898 links too check ;-)

Nob is also failing to mention that, 35 years after it was banned in
the US, most people STILL have DDT at measurable levels in their
bodies.

Prediction: nob will find a few contrarian quotes from junkscience that
agree with his POV and then say he's right.

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> The book's most haunting and famous chapter, "A Fable for Tomorrow,"
> depicted a nameless American town where all life -- from fish to birds
> to apple blossoms to human children -- had been "silenced" by the
> insidious effects of DDT.
>

A Fairy Tale.
It takes a village, and alas, no more village.
Too bad!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > The book's most haunting and famous chapter, "A Fable for Tomorrow,"
> > depicted a nameless American town where all life -- from fish to birds
> > to apple blossoms to human children -- had been "silenced" by the
> > insidious effects of DDT.

> A Fairy Tale.
> It takes a village, and alas, no more village.
> Too bad!

So Rachel Carsons is yet another left-wing, doom & gloom,
economy-stifling, ultragreen kook?

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> :
> : "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : >
>
> : >> > God you're stupid.
> : >> >
> : >> > The damn mosquitoes evolved - yes evolved - so they weren't
> affected by
> : >> > it.
> : >> >
> : >> > In the same way that some of the most popular anti-malarials are no
> : >> > longer
> : >> > effective !
> : >> >
> : >> > Graham
> : >>
> : >>
> : >> Sorry to diagree with you, but there are still people
> : >
> : > What kind of ppl ?
> : >
> : The one I'm referring to was I believe from the Agriculture dept. but
> I'm
> : not sure.
> : She said the main reason we don't provide DDT to African countries is
> : because it would look bad for us to sell something we don't use
> ourselves,
> : in spite of the fact that the reasons for its being banned were
> spurious.
> :
> : >> saying that DDT is
> : >> effective and there was a report on ABC a few weeks ago that had that
> : >> notion
> : >> confirmed by some functionary of the U.S. government as she explained
> why
> : >> we
> : >> won't make the stuff to be sold in countries where it would be
> useful.
> : >
> : > Considering it didn't work the first time there was an attempt to
> : > eradicate
> : > malaria this way, I fail to see the point of repeating the exercise
> other
> : > than
> : > to put additional profits in the bank accounts of the manufacturers.
> : >
> : I don't know about eradicating Malaria, but as I stated it is recognized
> as
> : the best REPELLANT of mosquitos known.
> :
> : > If it worked I'd expect it to be used in India. They don't worry too
> much
> : > about
> : > licenses, yet it's not used there.
> : >
> : > Graham
> :
> : I'm only telling what was in the report and what I have found elsewhere.
>
> ok, some reporting on DDT:
> ..... googling ddt + "genetic damage" :15.9 K links...
> 1st one
> http://www.cetos.org/articles/whygenes.html ddt bad 4 birds, mike
> 2nd one
> http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp
> Silent Spring took Carson four years to complete.

Many works of fiction have taken longer.

It meticulously described
> how DDT entered the food chain and accumulated in the fatty tissues of
> animals, including human beings, and caused cancer and genetic damage.

There was nothing meticulous about her work, it ranks right up there with
the scinetific rigor used in "Creation Science."

Her book is largely fiction. For example:
Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the
science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr.
DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now
established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable
harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet
DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced
normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956
article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a
very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in
all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of
their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched 83.9%
of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control"
pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed
high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than
80% of their eggs.

The most flattering thing said about her:You see, because of the wide ban of
DDT, the death rate of malaria has grown tremendously over the past 40+
years. The reason is because uninformed individuals misunderstand the
purpose behind the book. Carson's concern was the use of DDT for
AGRICULTURAL purposes, NOT health care purposes.

The facts however are not in dispute, DDT is safe and does work against
Mosquitos.



Some birds multiplied so well during the DDT years that they became pests:

a.. 6 million blackbirds ruined Scotland Neck, North Carolina in 1970,
polluting streams, depositing nine inches of droppings on the ground and
killing the forest where they roosted at night.

[Associated Press, March 18, 1970]
b.. 77 million blackbirds roosted within 50 miles of Ft. Campbell, KY
increasing the risk of histoplasmosis in humans.

[Louisville Courier-Journal, December 1975.]
c.. Ten million redwings were reported in a small area of northern Ohio.

[Graham, F. 1971. Bye-bye blackbirds? Audubon Magazine, pp. 29-35,
September]
d.. The Virginia Department of Agriculture stated, "We can no longer
tolerate the damage caused by the redwing ... 15 million tons of grain are
destroyed annually enough to feed 90 million people."

[Bulletin of the Virginia Department of Agriculture, May 1967]
e.. The phenomena of increasing bird populations during the DDT years
may be due, in part, to (1) fewer blood-sucking insects and reduced spread
of avian diseases (avian malaria, rickettsial-pox, avian bronchitis,
Newcastle disease, encephalitis, etc); (2) more seed and fruits available
for birds to eat after plant-eating insects were decimated; and (3)
Ingestion of DDT triggers hepatic enzymes that detoxify carcinogens such as
aflatoxin.
Some mosquitoes became "resistant" to DDT. "There is persuasive evidence
that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to DDT.
That crime, and in a very real sense it was a crime, can be laid to the
intemperate and inappropriate use of DDT by farmers, espeially cotton
growers. They used the insecticide at levels that would accelerate, if not
actually induce, the selection of a resistant population of mosquitoes."

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred
during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded
that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or
teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved
here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine
organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

[Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings
concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages).
Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world
population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed
there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up
to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an
official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead
than alive and riotously reproducing."

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
Another telling part of the DDT saga was unveiled during a lawsuit by
scientists claiming the National Audubon Society and the New York Times
defamed them as "paid liars" about DDT. Depositions revealed EDF and
National Audubon Society leaders plotted to "silence" and discredit
scientists who defended DDT.



The fact is that DDT is the most effective thing ever developed to fight
mosquitoes and help prevent people from getting Malaria, which kills about 1
million children per year.

Used properly it is one of the safest pesticides known.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > The book's most haunting and famous chapter, "A Fable for Tomorrow,"
>> > depicted a nameless American town where all life -- from fish to birds
>> > to apple blossoms to human children -- had been "silenced" by the
>> > insidious effects of DDT.
>
>> A Fairy Tale.
>> It takes a village, and alas, no more village.
>> Too bad!
>
> So Rachel Carsons is yet another left-wing, doom & gloom,
> economy-stifling, ultragreen kook?
>

not necessarily, I was only commenting about one chapter of fiction.
She did begin making us aware (when she wrote about reality) that our
actions
have consequences. But that goes for more than environmental issues.
Environmental controls have economic and health consequences, too.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...

: > :
: > : I'm only telling what was in the report and what I have found elsewhere.
: >
: > ok, some reporting on DDT:
: > ..... googling ddt + "genetic damage" :15.9 K links...
: > 1st one
: > http://www.cetos.org/articles/whygenes.html ddt bad 4 birds, mike
: > 2nd one
: > http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp
: > Silent Spring took Carson four years to complete.
:
: Many works of fiction have taken longer.
:
: It meticulously described
: > how DDT entered the food chain and accumulated in the fatty tissues of
: > animals, including human beings, and caused cancer and genetic damage.
:
: There was nothing meticulous about her work, it ranks right up there with
: the scinetific rigor used in "Creation Science."
:
: Her book is largely fiction. For example:
: Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the
: science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr.
: DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now
: established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable
: harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet
: DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced
: normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956
: article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a
: very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in
: all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of
: their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched 83.9%
: of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control"
: pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed
: high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than
: 80% of their eggs.
:
: The most flattering thing said about her:You see, because of the wide ban of
: DDT, the death rate of malaria has grown tremendously over the past 40+
: years. The reason is because uninformed individuals misunderstand the
: purpose behind the book. Carson's concern was the use of DDT for
: AGRICULTURAL purposes, NOT health care purposes.
:
: The facts however are not in dispute, DDT is safe and does work against
: Mosquitos.
:
:
:
: Some birds multiplied so well during the DDT years that they became pests:
:
: a.. 6 million blackbirds ruined Scotland Neck, North Carolina in 1970,
: polluting streams, depositing nine inches of droppings on the ground and
: killing the forest where they roosted at night.
:
: [Associated Press, March 18, 1970]
: b.. 77 million blackbirds roosted within 50 miles of Ft. Campbell, KY
: increasing the risk of histoplasmosis in humans.
:
: [Louisville Courier-Journal, December 1975.]
: c.. Ten million redwings were reported in a small area of northern Ohio.
:
: [Graham, F. 1971. Bye-bye blackbirds? Audubon Magazine, pp. 29-35,
: September]
: d.. The Virginia Department of Agriculture stated, "We can no longer
: tolerate the damage caused by the redwing ... 15 million tons of grain are
: destroyed annually enough to feed 90 million people."
:
: [Bulletin of the Virginia Department of Agriculture, May 1967]
: e.. The phenomena of increasing bird populations during the DDT years
: may be due, in part, to (1) fewer blood-sucking insects and reduced spread
: of avian diseases (avian malaria, rickettsial-pox, avian bronchitis,
: Newcastle disease, encephalitis, etc); (2) more seed and fruits available
: for birds to eat after plant-eating insects were decimated; and (3)
: Ingestion of DDT triggers hepatic enzymes that detoxify carcinogens such as
: aflatoxin.
: Some mosquitoes became "resistant" to DDT. "There is persuasive evidence
: that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to DDT.
: That crime, and in a very real sense it was a crime, can be laid to the
: intemperate and inappropriate use of DDT by farmers, espeially cotton
: growers. They used the insecticide at levels that would accelerate, if not
: actually induce, the selection of a resistant population of mosquitoes."
:
: [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
: Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred
: during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded
: that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or
: teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved
: here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine
: organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
:
: [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings
: concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages).
: Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]
:
: Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world
: population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed
: there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up
: to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an
: official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead
: than alive and riotously reproducing."
:
: [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
: Another telling part of the DDT saga was unveiled during a lawsuit by
: scientists claiming the National Audubon Society and the New York Times
: defamed them as "paid liars" about DDT. Depositions revealed EDF and
: National Audubon Society leaders plotted to "silence" and discredit
: scientists who defended DDT.
:
:
:
: The fact is that DDT is the most effective thing ever developed to fight
: mosquitoes and help prevent people from getting Malaria, which kills about 1
: million children per year.
:
: Used properly it is one of the safest pesticides known.
:

i've got more links where those came from, don't you worry :-) :
"
Report Links Pesticides with Immune System Problems
SOURCE: SCIENCE NEWS, March 9, 1996

According to a report by the Washington, D.C. based group, World Resources
Institute (WRI),
many pesticides appear to be increasing the incidence of infections, pneumonia,
ear
infections, and tuberculosis. The three pesticides listed as causing this problem
were DDT,
malathion, and the pesticide aldicarb. A summary of the report, appearing in the
March 9,
1996 issue of Science News, outlined many of the studies linking pesticides with
weakening
of the immune system. One of the groups commissioned researchers, Dr. Lyudmila
Kovtyukh,
of the Academy of Sciences in Kishinev, Moldova (a republic between Romania and
Ukraine),
found that children living in areas where pesticides had been most heavily
applied experienced
elevated rates of acute respiratory diseases (including pneumonia), as well as
many other
signs of immune system weakness. If you would like to read the entire March 9,
1996,
SCIENCE NEWS article, it has been placed on the internet by SCIENCE NEWS and can
be
seen by clicking Science News Immune System Toxicology.
"

once again, you make up your own definitions, like : DDT is the best insect
repellant"
so what is _best_ ? most specific, effective, having no side fx, cheap, etc,
etc, ???

representing part of the picture does not make other aspects go away, McK,
it's just a simplistic exercise in head-in-the-sand reasoning.

as Graham mentioned, chemical 'wonder solutions' have a limited time scope, as
mutation renders the effect immune after a while, the surviving population being
tougher to fight...that's survival of the fittest working at it's best for ya.

cheers,
Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

: > wrote in message
: ink.net...

: : The fact is that DDT is the most effective thing ever developed to fight
: : mosquitoes and help prevent people from getting Malaria, which kills about 1
: : million children per year.

o, and btw, mosquitoes are only the carrier, the vector for spreading the
plasmodium parasite that causes the disease, didn't you know _that_?
: cheers,
: Rudy
in case of doubt, here's a
link:
http://mosquito.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/372/RBMInfosheet_1.htm
"
Malaria parasites are developing unacceptable levels of resistance to one drug
after another and many insecticides are no longer useful against mosquitoes
transmitting the disease. Years of vaccine research have produced few hopeful
candidates and although scientists are redoubling the search, an effective
vaccine is at best years away. "

[Pooh Bear]

Ruud Broens wrote:

> as Graham mentioned, chemical 'wonder solutions' have a limited time scope, as
> mutation renders the effect immune after a while, the surviving population being
> tougher to fight...that's survival of the fittest working at it's best for ya.

Worse than that alone. The indiscriminate use of DDT in its early days resulted in
situations where the natural predators of the bugs were eliminated too, resulting in
*worse* infestations than had occurred previously !

Graham

[Ruud Broens]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
:
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: > as Graham mentioned, chemical 'wonder solutions' have a limited time scope,
as
: > mutation renders the effect immune after a while, the surviving population
being
: > tougher to fight...that's survival of the fittest working at it's best for
ya.
:
: Worse than that alone. The indiscriminate use of DDT in its early days resulted
in
: situations where the natural predators of the bugs were eliminated too,
resulting in
: *worse* infestations than had occurred previously !
:
: Graham
:
yep, a good reason to qualify the term best as in mikey's " _best_ insect
repellent"

found an nice site, (for Robert: about Al, too:)
with ton's of pdf's on toxicity,
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html#-D-
eg.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c3.pdf
on DDT

R.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Ruud Broens" > - Find messages by this author

Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:44:27 +0100

>found an nice site, (for Robert: about Al, too:)
>with ton's of pdf's on toxicity,
>http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html#-D-eg.
>http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c3.pdf
>on DDT

Sorry, Rudy. Nob knows a guy whose cousin heard on the TV from a guy
that you're wrong. He can't remember who it was, but it's good enough
for him.

Either that, or it's a liberal plot.

End of subject.

[Clyde Slick]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> :
> yep, a good reason to qualify the term best as in mikey's " _best_
> insect
> repellent"
>

A sane person wouldn't want one's lunch sprayed with DDT.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ruud Broens wrote:
>
>> as Graham mentioned, chemical 'wonder solutions' have a limited time
>> scope, as
>> mutation renders the effect immune after a while, the surviving
>> population being
>> tougher to fight...that's survival of the fittest working at it's best
>> for ya.
>
> Worse than that alone. The indiscriminate use of DDT in its early days
> resulted in
> situations where the natural predators of the bugs were eliminated too,
> resulting in
> *worse* infestations than had occurred previously !
>
> Graham
>
I'm not saying that the indiscriminate use from the past was Ok, only that
DDT has a use today and it should be used to prevent kids from dying. There
is ample evidence to support it's use as a repellant.

The facts indicate that when DDT was banned there was an almost instant and
constant incrrease in death from Malaria.

Spraying the outside of a dwelling is hardly the same kind of use as was
done in the past where people would sit by with picnic baskets as the trucks
sprayed the stuff.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> :
>> yep, a good reason to qualify the term best as in mikey's " _best_
>> insect
>> repellent"
>>
>
> A sane person wouldn't want one's lunch sprayed with DDT.
>
>
But if you lived in Africa you might want to spay the outside of your house.

[Jenn]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> :
> >> yep, a good reason to qualify the term best as in mikey's " _best_
> >> insect
> >> repellent"
> >>
> >
> > A sane person wouldn't want one's lunch sprayed with DDT.
> >
> >
> But if you lived in Africa you might want to spay the outside of your house.

To prevent it from having little cabin offspring?

[Pooh Bear]

wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Ruud Broens wrote:
> >
> >> as Graham mentioned, chemical 'wonder solutions' have a limited time
> >> scope, as
> >> mutation renders the effect immune after a while, the surviving
> >> population being
> >> tougher to fight...that's survival of the fittest working at it's best
> >> for ya.
> >
> > Worse than that alone. The indiscriminate use of DDT in its early days
> > resulted in
> > situations where the natural predators of the bugs were eliminated too,
> > resulting in
> > *worse* infestations than had occurred previously !
> >
> > Graham
>
> I'm not saying that the indiscriminate use from the past was Ok, only that
> DDT has a use today and it should be used to prevent kids from dying. There
> is ample evidence to support it's use as a repellant.

I'm afraid that use as a repellant is unlikely to inpact malarian transmission
much.

> The facts indicate that when DDT was banned there was an almost instant and
> constant incrrease in death from Malaria.

Not entirely so. In fact it *isn't* banned in many countries but simply fell out
of favour. Subsequent malarial death figures have varied hugely.

> Spraying the outside of a dwelling is hardly the same kind of use as was
> done in the past where people would sit by with picnic baskets as the trucks
> sprayed the stuff.

I'd like to see the precise rationale for this style of application.

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Ruud Broens" >
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:48:47 +0100

>representing part of the picture does not make other aspects go away, McK,
>it's just a simplistic exercise in head-in-the-sand reasoning.

Has this guy always been this intellectually dishonest?

Or is he truly as stupid as he seems?

Wow.

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Ruud Broens wrote:
>> >
>> >> as Graham mentioned, chemical 'wonder solutions' have a limited time
>> >> scope, as
>> >> mutation renders the effect immune after a while, the surviving
>> >> population being
>> >> tougher to fight...that's survival of the fittest working at it's best
>> >> for ya.
>> >
>> > Worse than that alone. The indiscriminate use of DDT in its early days
>> > resulted in
>> > situations where the natural predators of the bugs were eliminated too,
>> > resulting in
>> > *worse* infestations than had occurred previously !
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>> I'm not saying that the indiscriminate use from the past was Ok, only
>> that
>> DDT has a use today and it should be used to prevent kids from dying.
>> There
>> is ample evidence to support it's use as a repellant.
>
> I'm afraid that use as a repellant is unlikely to inpact malarian
> transmission
> much.
>
>> The facts indicate that when DDT was banned there was an almost instant
>> and
>> constant incrrease in death from Malaria.
>
> Not entirely so. In fact it *isn't* banned in many countries but simply
> fell out
> of favour. Subsequent malarial death figures have varied hugely.
>
1.. Some mosquitoes became "resistant" to DDT. "There is persuasive
evidence that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to
DDT. That crime, and in a very real sense it was a crime, can be laid to the
intemperate and inappropriate use of DDT by farmers, espeially cotton
growers. They used the insecticide at levels that would accelerate, if not
actually induce, the selection of a resistant population of mosquitoes."

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
2.. "Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and
mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological
mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong
avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where
DDT has been applied -- this still reduces mosquito-human contact. "This
avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not
entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious
questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical
resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil,
and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where
vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as
one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor
transmission of malaria."

[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop
Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]
1.. Some mosquitoes became "resistant" to DDT. "There is persuasive
evidence that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to
DDT. That crime, and in a very real sense it was a crime, can be laid to the
intemperate and inappropriate use of DDT by farmers, espeially cotton
growers. They used the insecticide at levels that would accelerate, if not
actually induce, the selection of a resistant population of mosquitoes."

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
2.. "Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and
mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological
mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong
avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where
DDT has been applied -- this still reduces mosquito-human contact. "This
avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not
entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious
questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical
resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil,
and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where
vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as
one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor
transmission of malaria."

[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop
Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021402M
>> Spraying the outside of a dwelling is hardly the same kind of use as
was
>> done in the past where people would sit by with picnic baskets as the
trucks
>> sprayed the stuff.
>
> I'd like to see the precise rationale for this style of application.
>
> Graham
>
>
Any of these links will take you to information about DDT and where and why
it is advocated.

It appears that some countries are using it and reducing Malaria. I think
that if the stuff has been wrongly banned and if the ban is based on wrong
or misleading information, that it desreves to be used, particularly since
there appears nothing that works as well.
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html


http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042604G

http://www.google.com/custom?cof=AWPID%253A199a028c5792299b%253B%26domai ns%3Dwww.tcsdaily.com%26sitesearch%3Dwww.tcsdaily. com&domains=www.tcsdaily.com&sitesearch=www.tcsdaily.com&domains=www.tcsdaily.com&sitesearch=www.tcsdaily.com&q=DDT

[Pooh Bear]

wrote:

> "There is persuasive
> evidence that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to
> DDT.

How the hell do you think it happened you fathead ?

Insecticide resistance has now more recently been joined by drug resistance too.

Many popular anti-malarials are now ineffective in some areas of the world.

I suppose you'll be telling me that dinosaurs are still alive next ?

Graham

[ScottW]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > "There is persuasive
> > evidence that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to
> > DDT.
>
> How the hell do you think it happened you fathead ?
>
> Insecticide resistance has now more recently been joined by drug resistance too.
>
> Many popular anti-malarials are now ineffective in some areas of the world.
>
> I suppose you'll be telling me that dinosaurs are still alive next ?

They are... the little ones called lizards are all over this freaking
desert.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Time for a dose of Terrierborg "debating trade".

> > I suppose you'll be telling me that dinosaurs are still alive next ?

> They are... the little ones called lizards are all over this freaking desert.

I drive a little tank to work, and I use little suns to light my home.

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> : > wrote in message
> : ink.net...
>
> : : The fact is that DDT is the most effective thing ever developed to
> fight
> : : mosquitoes and help prevent people from getting Malaria, which kills
> about 1
> : : million children per year.
>
> o, and btw, mosquitoes are only the carrier, the vector for spreading the
> plasmodium parasite that causes the disease, didn't you know _that_?
> : cheers,
> : Rudy
> in case of doubt, here's a
> link:
> http://mosquito.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/372/RBMInfosheet_1.htm
> "
> Malaria parasites are developing unacceptable levels of resistance to one
> drug
> after another and many insecticides are no longer useful against
> mosquitoes
> transmitting the disease. Years of vaccine research have produced few
> hopeful
> candidates and although scientists are redoubling the search, an effective
> vaccine is at best years away. "
>
>
Then shouldn't we use what works to repel or kill the bugs that carry
Malaria if it can be done in a reasonably safe way?

I'll say it again, there appears to be a use for DDT. Not in the same way
it was previously used, but a use nonetheless. If that is true, I see no
reason not to use it, and indeed some countries are using it.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Time for a dose of Terrierborg "debating trade".
>
>> > I suppose you'll be telling me that dinosaurs are still alive next ?
>
>> They are... the little ones called lizards are all over this freaking
>> desert.
>
> I drive a little tank to work, and I use little suns to light my home.
>

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm10.html



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access