When faced with overwhelming evidence that it is likely that man-made
influences are a large part of global warming, nob quotes discredited
'scientists' as his 'proof' that this is not the case.

When confronted with quotes from NASA that do not support his thesis,
nob just keeps repeating his mantra: "It isn't true; it isn't true."

What bizarre religion or belief system could be the basis of his
incredible whoppers in the face of hard evidence?

I think I have found the answer: nob is actually Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must
confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

"Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character"

--Joseph Goebbels

I think that nob must also have known John Stuart Mill. Where else
could this have come from?

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."
--John Stuart Mill

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
When faced with overwhelming evidence that it is likely that man-made
influences are a large part of global warming, nob quotes discredited
'scientists' as his 'proof' that this is not the case.

The problem is that it's not overwhelming evidence, it's overwhelming hype.

When confronted with quotes from NASA that do not support his thesis,
nob just keeps repeating his mantra: "It isn't true; it isn't true."

I provided onks to other NASA sites that don't agree, and that was the
point, even they don't have a consensus.

What bizarre religion or belief system could be the basis of his
incredible whoppers in the face of hard evidence?


What hard evidence? There is speculation and speculation only.
A few hot years do not automatically indicate man made GW.

Then there's the bit about U.N. documents being altered.

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the
Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: "There is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate. "

At least as valid as the "scientists" who urged signing of the Kyoto Accord.

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists,
astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick
Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is "based
upon flawed ideas."

Richard Lindzen of M.I.T has been very vocal on the subject of why the GW
hype is just that and why the so-called evidence is corrupt, flawed, or just
plain wrong.

Excuse me if I choose to believe people like:

by Philip Stott
(Philip Stott is professor emeritus of biogeography in the University of
London, and blogs at EnviroSpin Watch)

In any discussion of climate change, it is essential to distinguish between
the complex science of climate and the myth - in the sense of Roland
Barthes, or the 'hybrid', following Bruno Latour - of 'global warming' (1).
The latter is a politico-pseudoscientific construct, developed since the
late 1980s, in which the human emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon
dioxide and methane, is unquestioningly taken as the prime driver of a new
and dramatic type of climate change that will result in a significant
warming during the next 100 years and lead to catastrophe for both humanity
and the Earth.
This, in turn, has morphed since 1992 and the Rio Conference on the
environment into a legitimising myth for a gamut of interconnected political
agendas - above all for a range of European sensibilities with regards to
America, oil, the car, transport, economic growth, trade, and international
corporations.
The language employed tends to be authoritarian and religious in character,
involving the use of what the physicist PH Borcherds has termed the
'hysterical subjunctive' (2). Indeed, for many, the myth has become an
article of a secular faith that exhibits all the characteristics of a
premodern religion, above all demanding sacrifice to the Earth.

By contrast, the science of climate change starts from the principle that we
are concerned with the most complex, non-linear, chaotic system known, and
that it is distinctly unlikely that climate change can be predicted by
reference to a single factor, however politically convenient that factor.
Above all, in approaching the science, as distinct from the myth, it is
necessary precisely to examine three questions.

First, is the climate changing? The answer has to be: 'Of course it is.'
Evidence throughout geological time indicates climate change at all scales
and all times. Climate change is the norm, not the exception, and at any
moment the Earth is either warming or cooling. If climate were ever to
become stable, it would be a scientifically exciting phenomenon. To declare
that 'the climate is changing' is therefore a truism.
By contrast, the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of
climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate
'sustainability'. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron.
The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the
Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires,
than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred
to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who
question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate
change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm.

Secondly, do humans influence climate? Again, the answer is: 'Of course they
do.' Hominids and humans have been affecting climate since they first
manipulated fire to alter landscapes at least 750,000 years ago, but
possibly as far back as two million years. Recent research has further
implicated the development of agriculture, around 10,000 years ago, as an
important human factor. Humans influence climate in many ways, through
altering the albedo (the reflectivity) of the surface of the Earth, through
changing the energy balance of the Earth, by emitting particles and
aerosols, as well as by those hoary old favourites, industrial emissions.
Here we encounter the second major difference between the science and the
myth. In fact, human influences on climate are multi-factorial.
Unfortunately, we know precious little about most of them. My own instinct
is that our ability to change the reflectivity of the Earth's surface will,
in the end, prove to have been far more important than industrial emissions.
After all, if Lex Luthor covered the Tibetan High Plateau with black plastic
sheeting, even Superman might have problems dealing with the monsoons.

Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable climate change, and a stable
climate, by adjusting just one human variable, namely carbon dioxide
emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that
drive climate? The answer is: '100 per cent, no.' This is the seminal point
at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the
central beliefs of the global warming myth. The idea that we can manage
climate predictably by minimal adjustments to our output of some politically
selected gases is both naive and dangerous.
The truth is the opposite. In a system as complex and chaotic as climate,
such an action may even trigger unexpected consequences. It is vital to
remember that, for a coupled, non-linear system, not doing something (ie,
not emitting gases) is as unpredictable as doing something (ie, emitting
gases). Even if we closed down every factory in the world, crushed every car
and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw four billion
people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often
dramatically. The only trouble is that we would all be too poor to be able
to adapt to the changes, whatever their direction.


Here's a link to a piece by Lindzen:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

In part he notes:

Before even considering "greenhouse theory,'' it may be helpful to begin
with the issue that is almost always taken as a given--that carbon dioxide
will inevitably increase to values double and even quadruple present values.
Evidence from the analysis of ice cores and after 1958 from direct
atmospheric sampling shows that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has
been increasing since 1800. Before 1800 the density was about 275 parts per
million by volume. Today it is about 355 parts per million by volume. The
increase is generally believed to be due to the combination of increased
burning of fossil fuels and before 1905 to deforestation. The total source
is estimated to have been increasing exponentially at least until 1973. From
1973 until 1990 the rate of increase has been much slower, however. About
half the production of carbon dioxide has appeared in the atmosphere.

It is precisely because Lindzen is reputable and knowledgeable that Al Gore
didn't want him testify when they held hearings on GW, becuase Linzen would
have debunked it. Nice open mind, the evidence is contradicted, so let's
not hear the evidence.

Here's a bit of what he said then:

The obvious consequence of this is that if we do not accurately

model the dynamic heat transport, we cannot calculate the mean temperature
of the earth. No one in the

atmospheric sciences would argue with this; it is absolutely basic. Rather,
members of the modeling

community have argued that the models do well with such transports, and that
there is no major problem

here. However, extensive model intercomparisons conducted through DOE's AMIP
program have shown

wide differences among models and between models and observations. These
differences also represent

uncertainties and errors greatly in excess of the contributions from doubled
CO2.

A consequence of the mean temperature depending on dynamic transport is that
there might be climate

change in the absence of mean forcing. Motions depend on horizontal
variations in heating rather than

mean heating, and such variations occur for a variety of reasons ranging
from ENSO events (dependent

on the interaction of the atmosphere and the oceans) to variations in the
earth's orbit.



And more recently:

"For example, there is widespread agreement [among climate scientists] ...
that large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major
features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages
that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very
warm climates of the Miocene [23 to 5 million years ago], Eocene [57 to 35
million years ago], and Cretaceous [146 to 65 million years ago]. Neither do
they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena
like El Ninos, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations -
all of which are well documented in the data, and important contributors to
natural variability."

As he did when he spoke to the Commerce Committee in 2001.



Then there's this bit from a relevant group: the American Association of
State Climatologists, recently summarized the state of climate simulations:

"Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties ... For time scales
of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such
predictions - called "verification" - is simply impossible, since we have to
wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts. ... climate
predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and
changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought,
flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms.
These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society
than annual average global temperature trends."

So you'll excuse me if I'm not willing to say your evidence is conclusive,
since it is anything but. What it is, is conjecture and nothing more.

As long as reputable scinetists say thngs like:
In the chapter "Global Warmth" in his book A Moment On The Earth, Gregg
Easterbrook answers this claim:


"Certainly this is possible. But in making the assertion doomsayers leave
out a key modifier: The natural carbon cycle is in an approximate
equilibrium state. Ice-core records are clear on the point that natural CO2
levels bounced up and down long before the first flint struck steel. Into
the approximate equilibrium of the natural carbon cycle comes such natural
perturbations as periods of global volcanism, ice ages, droughts that reduce
carbon dioxide subtractions by land plants, weather vacillations that cause
rainy seasons and increase carbon dioxide subtractions by land plants, and
many other natural carbon-altering events. In environmental orthodoxy,
before the arrival of men and women the Earth dwelled in a sort of Golden
Era when all natural forces ideally balanced. Surely there were individual
centuries when this was so; perhaps there were millennia. But at least in
the most recent four million years of Earth history, the period of cyclical
ice ages, the biosphere could hardly be described as a placid equilibrium
state."[5]
Bear in mind, too, that over 98% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor
and clouds.[6,7] Less than 2% of greenhouse warming is due to the greenhouse
gas CO2. Human industry's contribution to the amount of atmospheric CO2
present at any given time is not known because we simply do not fully
understand to what extent increased atmospheric CO2 triggers natural
balancing forces to consume any excess CO2.

And that bit in one of your other posts about Global cooling being a myth is
complete bull****, I was around in the 70's and recall reading many articles
and op ed pieces on the subject of global cooling or as some said we were at
the end of such a period.

Here's a sample of the kind of thing that was being discussed back in the
mid-seventies by that part of the scientific community that dealt with the
geological history of climate changes:

"The present interglacial interval -- which has now lasted for about 10,000
years -- represents a climatic regime that is relatively rare during the
past million years, most of which has been occupied by colder, glacial
regimes. Only during about 8 percent of the past 700,000 years has the earth
experienced climates as warm or warmer than the present.

"The penultimate interglacial age began about 125,000 years ago, and lasted
for approximately 10,000 years. Similar interglacial ages -- each lasting
10,000 plus or minus 2000 years and each followed by a glacial maximum --
have occurred on the average every 100,000 years during at least the past
half-million years.

"During this period, fluctuations of the northern hemisphere ice sheets
caused sea level variations of the order of 100 meters." (Understanding
Climate Change, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1975 --
page 181).

On page 189 the question was asked: "When will the present interglacial
[period] end?

"Few paleoclimatoligists would dispute that the prominent warm periods (or
interglacials) that have followed each of the terminations of the major
glaciations have had durations of 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years. In each
case, a period of considerably colder climate has followed immediately after
the interglacial interval.

Since about 10,000 years have passed since the onset of the present period
of prominent warmth, the question naturally arises as to whether we are
indeed on the brink of a period of colder climate."

"The question remains unsolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic
in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of
unknown timing ... if on the other hand, these changes are more sinusoidal
in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of a
thousand years."

A study prepared for the 95th Congress in 1978 agreed with the National
Academy of Sciences position as explained in the above-quoted study. The
document Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy and Potential
warned:

"In geological prospective, the case for cooling is strong ... If this
interglacial age lasts no longer than a dozen earlier ones in the past
million years, as recorded in deep sea sediments, we may reasonably suppose
the world is about due to slide into the next ice age."

That was the prevailing opinion among paleoclimatologists; it was a case of
the past being prologue. If the earth underwent regular cycles of glaciation
and interglacial periods, and the geological record proved that to be the
case, then obviously we are at the end of the present between-ice-ages
period.


So keep peddaling the propaganda, you're the one with closer link to
Goebbels.

My conscience is very clear as is the record on GW, mainly there is no
consensus and there is no proof.

From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:21:13 GMT

My conscience is very clear as is the record on GW, mainly there is no
consensus and there is no proof.

You forgot about this:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

The national science academies of the 'G8' nations, plus three more,
(Germany, Brazil, the UK, the US, Russia, Japan, China, Italy, France,
India, and Canada) all agree. The signatories of Kyoto all agree. Oh,
yes, dear nob, there is consensus. A few contrarian scientists, who are
perhaps funded by conservative causes (like the 'scientist' from UCLA
you quoted about media bias recently), or who are from dubious websites
like 'junkscience' does not mean there isn't consensus.

And even the people you quote disagree with you. Remember saying the
American Meteorological Society thought GW was crap?

a.. A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American
Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the
warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas
emissions.

Did you look at these? Care to comment?

http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/jointacademies.pdf

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climat...arch_2003.html

Regarding your quoted Gallup poll, by the way
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change):
"In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research
in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring
now."

How dare you call me a propagandist. All I do is show where you have
lied or present flawed or outdated information. You have no morals. You
are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do not understand how science
works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:21:13 GMT

My conscience is very clear as is the record on GW, mainly there is no
consensus and there is no proof.

You forgot about this:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

The national science academies of the 'G8' nations, plus three more,
(Germany, Brazil, the UK, the US, Russia, Japan, China, Italy, France,
India, and Canada) all agree. The signatories of Kyoto all agree. Oh,
yes, dear nob, there is consensus.

There consensus among scinetists is that we don't know enough about the
subject to make any sweeping recomendations.

A few contrarian scientists, who are
perhaps funded by conservative causes (like the 'scientist' from UCLA
you quoted about media bias recently), or who are from dubious websites
like 'junkscience' does not mean there isn't consensus.

It does, you just have chosen to believe the current liberal emergency.

And even the people you quote disagree with you. Remember saying the
American Meteorological Society thought GW was crap?

Man made GW. There is little doubt that some warming is going on, it's the
cause that's in dispute. The AMS says "At present, observations suggest, but
are insufficient to prove, that atmospheric warming caused by human
activities has already occurred."

Your categorizing junkscience.com as dubious is yours, it happens to be an
objective review of the current pseudo scientific crap that floats around,
essentially unchallenged.

a.. A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American
Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the
warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse
gas
emissions.

Did you look at these? Care to comment?

http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/jointacademies.pdf

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climat...arch_2003.html

Seeing names like Houghton in the list of references does not bolster their
viewpoints.

Regarding your quoted Gallup poll, by the way
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change):
"In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research
in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring
now."

That's like saying ost people involved in audio believe that there are vast
differences in amplifers even when they measure the same.

How dare you call me a propagandist. All I do is show where you have
lied or present flawed or outdated information.

And then spread propaganda.

You have no morals. You
are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do not understand how science
works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.

Projection is an ugly thing.

I've quoted people like Lindzen who is one of the formeost experts in the
field.
Disagree all you like, but saying this is settled and that there is
consensus is bull****.

From:
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:06:38 GMT

And even the people you quote disagree with you. Remember saying the
American Meteorological Society thought GW was crap?

Man made GW. There is little doubt that some warming is going on, it's the
cause that's in dispute. The AMS says "At present, observations suggest, but
are insufficient to prove, that atmospheric warming caused by human
activities has already occurred."

I note that you do not provide links to show them saying what you claim
they do.

Why don't we go see what they actually say, now, on their website?

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climat...arch_2003.html

"Because human activities are contributing to climate change, we have a

collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered

response actions..."

http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/jointacademies.pdf

Lying reduces the effectiveness of your arguments to zero.

Your categorizing junkscience.com as dubious is yours, it happens to be an
objective review of the current pseudo scientific crap that floats around,
essentially unchallenged.

No, actually that is not my categorization. It's the categorization of
realclimate.com, the site *you* referred me to. Junkscience obviously
has an agenda, or else they do not understand science or the difference
between fact and opinion:
(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."

So when you quote agenda-driven hack sites like junkscience, it
drastically lowers the quality of your arguments. Using sites like that
show that you will accept the opinion of ANYBODY that agrees with you.
That you choose to call them 'objective' once again calls your
intelligence into question.

Regarding your quoted Gallup poll, by the way
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change):
"In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research
in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring
now."

That's like saying ost people involved in audio believe that there are vast
differences in amplifers even when they measure the same.

Your brain doesn't work very well, now does it.

If you want a better analogy, how about this one: most scientists agree
that we understand enough about electricity and its control to make
amplifiers and other audio electronics pieces that are virtually
indistinguishable from one another, inexpensively. Richard Lindzen
disagrees with those hundreds of his fellow scientists. Lindzen feels
that not everything is understood and that power conditioners will
improve the sound of your system. Nob follows Lindzen, whom nob
considers his 'Messiah.'

I've quoted people like Lindzen who is one of the formeost experts in the
field.

And failed to note that MIT as a whole, where Lindzen is but one
professor, seems to believe that GW with a man-made component is a
reality.

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

You can always find one dissenter in any debate. There are credentialed
'scientists' who argue for Intelligent Design, for example. Are you an
adherent of ID as well?

You go with your lone Messiah Lindzen. The rest of the world seems to
feel that the fact that hundreds of other equally qualified, equally
well-credentialed scientists who disagree with your Messiah carries
more weight.

You have no morals. You are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do not understand how science
works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.

Projection is an ugly thing.

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Loser. What I said applies to you. It is not name-calling. It is fact.

Disagree all you like, but saying this is settled and that there is
consensus is bull****.

I've never said this is 'settled.' Perhaps in your world having a few
crackpots disagree serves to say there is not consensus. When virtually
every major world-wide scientific organization says that there is
global warming and that man-made influences play a part, I call that
consensus. Of course, I am not pulling out quotes from years ago, or
whatever. I am looking at what they say on their websites now, as in
the case of the AMS.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:06:38 GMT

And even the people you quote disagree with you. Remember saying the
American Meteorological Society thought GW was crap?

Man made GW. There is little doubt that some warming is going on, it's
the
cause that's in dispute. The AMS says "At present, observations suggest,
but
are insufficient to prove, that atmospheric warming caused by human
activities has already occurred."

I note that you do not provide links to show them saying what you claim
they do.

If you can't find them as easily as I did, you're not as smart as you think.

Why don't we go see what they actually say, now, on their website?

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climat...arch_2003.html

"Because human activities are contributing to climate change, we have a

collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered

response actions..."

http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/jointacademies.pdf

Lying reduces the effectiveness of your arguments to zero.

Your categorizing junkscience.com as dubious is yours, it happens to be an
objective review of the current pseudo scientific crap that floats around,
essentially unchallenged.

No, actually that is not my categorization. It's the categorization of
realclimate.com, the site *you* referred me to.

My mistake. I'll have to live with it, but it doesn't amke their claims
true and certainly doesn't mean there is consensus. There are many
respected people stating that man made GW is bull****.

Junkscience obviously
has an agenda, or else they do not understand science or the difference
between fact and opinion:
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229) (last paragraph):

Their agenda is to debunk bull**** science. I can't vouch for their fact
checking, but I have found the stuff I've found there is backed up elsewhere
by credible sources.


"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."

So when you quote agenda-driven hack sites like junkscience, it
drastically lowers the quality of your arguments. Using sites like that
show that you will accept the opinion of ANYBODY that agrees with you.
That you choose to call them 'objective' once again calls your
intelligence into question.

They also have links to many well respceted scientific discussions on the
subject.
You don't like them because they arte against your agenda, which is more
government control.


Regarding your quoted Gallup poll, by the way
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change):
"In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research
in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring
now."

That's like saying most people involved in audio believe that there are
vast
differences in amplifers even when they measure the same.

Your brain doesn't work very well, now does it.

If you want a better analogy, how about this one: most scientists agree
that we understand enough about electricity and its control to make
amplifiers and other audio electronics pieces that are virtually
indistinguishable from one another, inexpensively. Richard Lindzen
disagrees with those hundreds of his fellow scientists. Lindzen feels
that not everything is understood and that power conditioners will
improve the sound of your system. Nob follows Lindzen, whom nob
considers his 'Messiah.'

Hardly, but he is an M.I.T. professor and expert on climate.

I've quoted people like Lindzen who is one of the formeost experts in the
field.

And failed to note that MIT as a whole, where Lindzen is but one
professor, seems to believe that GW with a man-made component is a
reality.

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

You can always find one dissenter in any debate. There are credentialed
'scientists' who argue for Intelligent Design, for example. Are you an
adherent of ID as well?

Now who's not being very smart?

You go with your lone Messiah Lindzen. The rest of the world seems to
feel that the fact that hundreds of other equally qualified, equally
well-credentialed scientists who disagree with your Messiah carries
more weight.

He's not alone by any means.
Some othe people:
Robert C. Balling Dir. Office of Climatology, Arizona State Univ., Author
of the Satanic Gases

William M. Gray Professor Atmospheric Science U of Colorado William M.
"Bill" Gray, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado
State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at
CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

William M. Happer Professor of Physics, Princeton University

S. Fred Singer: Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project,
a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also
Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor
emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His
previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S.
Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior
(1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary
Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National
Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for
Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).

John Christy University of Alabama Climatology Professor
William Ruddiman University of Virginia Professor Emeritus Environmental
Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia

Patrick J. Michaels Pat Michaels is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute
and a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia. According to Nature magazine, Michaels is one of the most popular
lecturers in the nation on the subject of global warming. He is a past
president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was
program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American
Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was an
author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year" awarded by the
Association of American Geographers, for the demonstration that urban
heat-related mortality declined significantly as cities became warmer.






You have no morals. You are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do not
understand how science
works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.

Projection is an ugly thing.

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"


No, You accuse me of what you do.

Loser. What I said applies to you. It is not name-calling. It is fact.

Disagree all you like, but saying this is settled and that there is
consensus is bull****.

I've never said this is 'settled.' Perhaps in your world having a few
crackpots disagree serves to say there is not consensus.

The crackpots are the ones trying to sellus a bill of goods about something
like GW.

When virtually
every major world-wide scientific organization says that there is
global warming and that man-made influences play a part, I call that
consensus. Of course, I am not pulling out quotes from years ago, or
whatever. I am looking at what they say on their websites now, as in
the case of the AMS.


Let's look at some other views, something I doubt you do much.
Try some of these.
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/GlobalCooling.htm
An excerpt: A sudy by William Ruddiman, Professor Emeritus of Environmental
Sciences and his team at the University of Virginia Charlottesville,
Virginia has shown that if ancient agriculturists had not systematically
cleared forests, planted crops and raised domesticated herds, global
temperatures today would be an average of two degrees centigrade lower.

And you thought that greenhouse gasses were at issue only in the recent
industrial era? You've been misled. The relentless focus on modern fossil
fuels ignores the dramatic climatic effect of the forest clearances and
other effects since the dawn of mass agriculture around 8,000 years ago.


CENTRAL HEATING FOR EARTH

Modern climatology has assumed that the relatively recent increases in
greenhouse gasses were driving up temperatures which were otherwise
historically stable.

But the latest research confirms that without ancient greenhouse gasses, a
decreasing level of solar radiation driven by Earth-orbital changes would
have caused global temperatures to plunge.

Professor Ruddiman's study, published in the journal Quaternary Science
Reviews reports
a test of this hypothesis using the GENESIS global climate computer model.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml
University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy, a climate
expert on whom I have relied for years, makes some interesting observations
about the Arctic Council's report. "If you look at the long term records,
the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He
cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70
degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the
Arctic were 1937 and 1938. This area is just slightly above the Arctic
Circle.
Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast
between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years. After 1940, the Arctic
saw a big cool-down and climatologists noted sea ice expanding in the
northern Atlantic. Christy argues that what he calls the Great Climate Shift
occurred in the late 1970s and caused another sudden warming in the Arctic.
Since the late 1970s there has not been much additional warming in the
region at all. In fact, on page 23, the Arctic Council Assessment offers
very similar data for Arctic temperature trends from 60 degrees north
latitude-the area that includes most of Alaska and essentially all of
Greenland, most of Norway and Sweden, and the bulk of Russia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm

By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University

As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had
taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming
would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such
warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the
mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation
concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age
may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming
bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still
in full swing.

Not our fault

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes.
We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas
increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water
vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as
anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level
cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive
feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that
some scientists hypothesise.

From the Harvard Gazette: April 24, 2003

Global warming is not so hot:
1003 was worse, researchers find
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003
in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the
weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?


To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took
a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at
studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They
checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying
on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen,
tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies.
Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past
millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

http://www.cdfe.org/lomborg_cleared.htm

http://www.cdfe.org/scientific.htm

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

Durham, N.C. -- At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during
the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than
factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by
various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

From:
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:08:15 GMT

You don't like them because they arte against your agenda, which is more
government control.

So that's my 'agenda'? LOL! You are a buffoon.

Nothing would please me more than to have your position be correct. We
wouldn't have to do anything. We could pump as much **** into the air
as we wanted to, with no repurcussions.

So let me ask you: let's assume your position: what if all the hundreds
of scientists who think GW with a man-made component is going on are
wrong? We reduce some emissions, get air slightly cleaner, and what?
Let's assume your position is wrong, and we do nothing. We possibly go
into runaway temperature increases, and life on earth (such as it is at
that point) sucks. So are you being rational? I sure don't think so.
Let's see what other fabrications you're concocting.

You should read this article, which talks about your Messiah Lindzen:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...earth.science/

"[Lindzen] is taken seriously because he's capable of excellent
science," Sommerville said. "[But] most of the scientific community
thinks he's mistaken... People are given a fair hearing and then we
move on..." "...When you go to your doctor, and she says you're due for
a heart attack, you don't turn around and say medicine is imperfect
even if she can't predict the date of your heart attack," Sommerville
said. "You take it seriously. I think climate science is in that
position now."

Let's look at your Duke 'report' for fabrications. You quote this:

"Durham, N.C. -- At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured
during
the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than
factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by

various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."

But you fail to mention this, WHICH IS IN THE SAME REPORT:

"However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the
basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of
carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases."

And this:

"This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases
contribute to global warming, they stressed. "Those gases would still
give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said."

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

Your article from reason ends thus:

"So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional
wisdom-or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty
of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and
the controversy. "

This is EXACTLY what realclimate.com said about junkscience, by the
way: taking an opinion piece and offering it as 'proof' that some
scientific point is now made.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml

Let's look at the homepage of another site you mention as a source for
your point, breakfornews.com

"Wag, Wag, Wag. The tail wags the dog. It's all a movie, with players
and a script. Deranged Dictator Bush. Outraged U.N. Al-Qaida savages
who behead.
And you, being played for a sucker. "News" is scripted. 9/11 was
scripted. You live in a Wag the Dog movie directed by the G8 New Word
Order."

http://www.breakfornews.com/

Do you seriously read (and believe) this crap? LOL!

You have no morals. You are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do not
understand how science
works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.

Projection is an ugly thing.

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

No, You accuse me of what you do.

What do I do, other than show how you snip the quotes (never failing to
disregard anything that might show that you're wrong) (see above), show
how you quote conspiracy theory websites like breakfornews, quote other
dubious sources like junkscience, quote sources funded primarily by
conservative groups and industries that might have a vested interest as
though they're not biased, and so on.

Nob, you are without a doubt the most intellectually dishonest person
that I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.

You are either stupid, or you are being intentionally dishonest. Which
one is it? Or is it both?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:08:15 GMT

You don't like them because they arte against your agenda, which is more
government control.

So that's my 'agenda'? LOL! You are a buffoon.

Nothing would please me more than to have your position be correct. We
wouldn't have to do anything. We could pump as much **** into the air
as we wanted to, with no repurcussions.

So let me ask you: let's assume your position: what if all the hundreds
of scientists who think GW with a man-made component is going on are
wrong? We reduce some emissions, get air slightly cleaner, and what?
Let's assume your position is wrong, and we do nothing. We possibly go
into runaway temperature increases, and life on earth (such as it is at
that point) sucks. So are you being rational? I sure don't think so.
Let's see what other fabrications you're concocting.

You should read this article, which talks about your Messiah Lindzen:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...earth.science/

"[Lindzen] is taken seriously because he's capable of excellent
science," Sommerville said. "[But] most of the scientific community
thinks he's mistaken... People are given a fair hearing and then we
move on..." "...When you go to your doctor, and she says you're due for
a heart attack, you don't turn around and say medicine is imperfect
even if she can't predict the date of your heart attack," Sommerville
said. "You take it seriously. I think climate science is in that
position now."

Let's look at your Duke 'report' for fabrications. You quote this:

"Durham, N.C. -- At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured
during
the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than
factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by

various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."

But you fail to mention this, WHICH IS IN THE SAME REPORT:

"However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the
basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of
carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases."

And this:

"This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases
contribute to global warming, they stressed. "Those gases would still
give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said."

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

Your article from reason ends thus:

"So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional
wisdom-or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty
of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and
the controversy. "

This is EXACTLY what realclimate.com said about junkscience, by the
way: taking an opinion piece and offering it as 'proof' that some
scientific point is now made.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml

Let's look at the homepage of another site you mention as a source for
your point, breakfornews.com

"Wag, Wag, Wag. The tail wags the dog. It's all a movie, with players
and a script. Deranged Dictator Bush. Outraged U.N. Al-Qaida savages
who behead.
And you, being played for a sucker. "News" is scripted. 9/11 was
scripted. You live in a Wag the Dog movie directed by the G8 New Word
Order."

http://www.breakfornews.com/

Do you seriously read (and believe) this crap? LOL!

You have no morals. You are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do
not
understand how science
works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.

Projection is an ugly thing.

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

No, You accuse me of what you do.

What do I do, other than show how you snip the quotes (never failing to
disregard anything that might show that you're wrong) (see above), show
how you quote conspiracy theory websites like breakfornews, quote other
dubious sources like junkscience, quote sources funded primarily by
conservative groups and industries that might have a vested interest as
though they're not biased, and so on.

Nob, you are without a doubt the most intellectually dishonest person
that I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.

You are either stupid, or you are being intentionally dishonest. Which
one is it? Or is it both?

Right, and the New Yourk Times is your idea of intellectually honest, and
Teddy Kennedy is qualified to ask somebody about the morality.

From:
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:44:07 GMT

Right, and the New Yourk Times is your idea of intellectually honest, and
Teddy Kennedy is qualified to ask somebody about the morality.

And the best nob can do is a strawman.

Set, game, match.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:44:07 GMT

Right, and the New Yourk Times is your idea of intellectually honest, and
Teddy Kennedy is qualified to ask somebody about the morality.

And the best nob can do is a strawman.

Set, game, match.

I"m tired.

The point that is left is that there are many credible scinetists and
University researchers that don't agree about GW being man made. It may
very likely be nothing more than a normal weather pattern.

Considering how little we acutally contribute as a percentage of the total
CO2, it's possible that we are having no effect at all.

Another point to consider is that the history of fuel is for it to get more
efficient and cleaner. Those using the the worst fuel are the poorest.
Instead of punishing the U.S. and those other countries that are Industrial
giants, why not get the poorer countries to a place where they cna use the
same type of fuels and get the same sort of efficiency as we do? Bringing
the poorer countries, using the dirtiest fuels up to out level raises
everybody and reduces the CO2 without punishment to anybody.

From:
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:25:04 GMT

Another point to consider is that the history of fuel is for it to get more
efficient and cleaner. Those using the the worst fuel are the poorest.
Instead of punishing the U.S. and those other countries that are Industrial
giants, why not get the poorer countries to a place where they cna use the
same type of fuels and get the same sort of efficiency as we do? Bringing
the poorer countries, using the dirtiest fuels up to out level raises
everybody and reduces the CO2 without punishment to anybody.

We might actually agree on this.

For example, E85 is running about 80 cents per gallon less than regular
unleaded locally. It burns cleaner, has an octane rating of over 100,
and is now getting to be substantially cheaper than gas.

I don't think this is a case of the market saying, 'We don't want E85.'
I think it's more of a case of the market not knowing that it's
available or what its benefits are. As a case in point, I bought a
Flexible Fuel Vehicle without knowing it in 2000. It was the one they
had on the lot that met my needs. A guy that worked in the office next
door to mine asked me if I'd run it on E85 yet. I asked him what he was
talking about. I had not heard of E85, or FFVs, and aside from the
little emblem on the quarter panel there was no difference in either
appearance or performance. So I went online to see what it was all
about.

At that time, gas was ($1.40?) per gallon. Whatever it was, the local
stations tied the price of E85 to 10 cents less than regular. As I
mentioned, the only drawback I could see was that I got about 15% less
mileage (I'm no chemist, but I think it has something to do with E85
not mixing with air as efficiently as gas). Economically it didn't make
sense at that time as I was spending more to drive with E85. Now,
however, that argument is no longer true since the cost of E85 is about
40% less than regular unleaded. As for more the inconvenience of more
frequent fueling stops, larger fuel tanks could be installed.

When I bought my Jeep I looked to see if E85 was available. I also
checked for diesel. Only the Liberty (too small for my needs) was
available in diesel. Jeep does not offer a FFV.

I think if more people knew about it the FFV vehicles would sell, not
so much as an environmental solution, but as one of lowered fuel costs
and reducing dependence on oil (I think that a fuel that is 15-20% less
efficient yet only uses 15% gas is still a net reduction of something
like 70-80% in oil consumption) . The much lower GHG emissions are a
side bonus.

As another bonus, apparently these vehicles do not cost automobile
manufacturers much more, if any more at all, to build. On the vehicles
currently offered I think the sticker price is the same. So producing
them would apparently not place an undue burden on the automotive
industry.

I also think it would make many federal farm subsidies go away, or at
least be greatly reduced.

You mentioned that you knew people who had not been pleased with
E85-powered cars. Overall, I had no complaints other than the ones I
mentioned above. What were their complaints?

wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: From:
: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:44:07 GMT
:
: Right, and the New Yourk Times is your idea of intellectually honest, and
: Teddy Kennedy is qualified to ask somebody about the morality.
:
: And the best nob can do is a strawman.
:
: Set, game, match.
:
: I"m tired.
:
: The point that is left is that there are many credible scinetists and
: University researchers that don't agree about GW being man made.
: It may very likely be nothing more than a normal weather pattern.
...............

You don't seem to get what i told you about the net influx of heat, that is
causing the _heating up_ ; weather is responsive, the solar energy is
the driving force.
suppose for a moment the earth was a solid object, without atmosphere,
then an increase in temperature of 6 degrees centigrade would increase
the radiated heat by about 10 %, so obviously any imbalance will settle
at a new equilibrium - that's just as with any object you heat up at home.

the real situation is somewhat more complicated;-)
on the day-side, the albedo, reflectivity index, determines how much of
the incoming solar energy is reflected, on the night-side, heat is radiated
according to surface temperature.. but wait, there's the atmosphere !
this reduces the heat radiated back into space and together with earth's
rotation and oceans creates the weather patterns.

the different gases that make up the atmosphere are part of a chemical
balance with the gases chemically bound in soil, physically dissolved
in the oceans, etc. higher temperatures shift these equations to the
gaseous state, leading to increased atmospheric pressure and more
reduction in radiated heat - positive feedback !
but wait .. luckily, this planet is filled with living matter, altering the
picture once more. eg. vegetation takes on a different colour when
temperatures rise, changing the reflectivity. man made activity, such as
agriculture, urbanisation, emission of various gases change the balance.
bacteria, insects, other lifeforms partake in several balances.
ocean currents, wind, clouds redistribute heat.

any reasonable model thus needs more than a few dozen parameters
to 'get it right'


: Considering how little we acutally contribute as a percentage of the total
: CO2, it's possible that we are having no effect at all.
:
Massive amounts of methane are leaking away at pump stations,
something like 5 % of total NG distributed, CH4 is a 'greenhouse gas'
Then again, a billion tons a year are produced by bacterial fermentation
in mud in rivers, oceans, estuaries, swamps.
Some 50 times the amount of atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in the
oceans. Massive amounts of nitrogen are bound as nitrates in the sea.

Etc., etc., it's exeedingly complex, no single discipline can claim
it's vision to give the real resultant picture of all these systems.

What matters not so much is the absolute level of temperature or CO2
content in the atmosphere, as these have been all over the map in the past,
it is the _unprecedented_ rate of change that may spell trouble,
as there may not be sufficient feedback regulation , that is, the
system that took millions of years to evolve is nudged outside it's
correctable range (in the same sense that a buffer solution cannot cope
with _any_ level of disturbance, or say an amplifier that is clipping
cannot be corrected by feedback
This rate of change *does* seem to be indicating man made influences!

Rudy

: Another point to consider is that the history of fuel is for it to get more
: efficient and cleaner. Those using the the worst fuel are the poorest.
: Instead of punishing the U.S. and those other countries that are Industrial
: giants, why not get the poorer countries to a place where they cna use the
: same type of fuels and get the same sort of efficiency as we do? Bringing
: the poorer countries, using the dirtiest fuels up to out level raises
: everybody and reduces the CO2 without punishment to anybody.
:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

From:
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:25:04 GMT

Another point to consider is that the history of fuel is for it to get more
efficient and cleaner. Those using the the worst fuel are the poorest.
Instead of punishing the U.S. and those other countries that are Industrial
giants, why not get the poorer countries to a place where they cna use the
same type of fuels and get the same sort of efficiency as we do? Bringing
the poorer countries, using the dirtiest fuels up to out level raises
everybody and reduces the CO2 without punishment to anybody.

We might actually agree on this.

For example, E85 is running about 80 cents per gallon less than regular
unleaded locally. It burns cleaner, has an octane rating of over 100,
and is now getting to be substantially cheaper than gas.

There's no freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was cheaper at all, and
I've read that it takes more energy to produce the alcohol than what's
in the alcohol.

From: dizzy - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:12:58 GMT

Oh goody. More absolute statements that are mainly not correct. Another
chance to argue. What fun.

There's no freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was cheaper at all, and
I've read that it takes more energy to produce the alcohol than what's
in the alcohol.

Surprize! It is that much cheaper. And it apparently delivers more
energy than it takes to produce.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

"The responsible, reliable analyses done well show that both corn
[kernel] ethanol and cellulosic ethanol can replace petroleum," Dale
says. He points to a 2004 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
that reported that ethanol production returns 67 percent more energy
than it consumes."

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051001/bob10.asp

A picture on price is worth a thousand words:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...eilm_e86sales/

Another couple of articles on price:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...ar/P125241.asp

http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/macon/rr/i1098_33.html

Here's Big Oil, one of the real culprits in limiting E85:

"Certainly, ethanol has its friends, like corn growers, and its
enemies. In July, Corn Cob Bob, an ethanol industry mascot, was
banished from Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa. Shell, a sponsor of
the festivities, had expressed discomfort at the mascot's
participation. "

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=4408

And yes, there does appear to be a government subsidy. But as the
market grows, and the technology matures, one would presume that those
would go away.

I also believe you have to look at some what we're spending in the
Middle East as at least partially a fuel subsidy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Is E85 the total answer? Probably not. But (as one of the articles
points out) most people that already drive an E85-equipped car don't
even know it. As nob stated, we should be doing *everything* we can do
reduce our dependence on oil. Letting people have the option, or simply
making them aware that they already have the option, is a start.

Setting and enforcing fleet mileage requirements would be another good
step.

I look forward to a long and fruitful argument with you.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:25:04 GMT

You mentioned that you knew people who had not been pleased with
E85-powered cars. Overall, I had no complaints other than the ones I
mentioned above. What were their complaints?

They didn't get the same performance, in terms of horsepower oomph.
Some said the cars seemed to run rougher than with gasoliine.

On the other hand I've also known people who didn't have enough money to
maintain or repair their vehicles to pass the smog test, so they'd fill up
with enough Ethanol to take the test and it allowed them to pass.

I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for vehicles and
electric power.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: dizzy - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:12:58 GMT

Oh goody. More absolute statements that are mainly not correct. Another
chance to argue. What fun.

There's no freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was cheaper at all, and
I've read that it takes more energy to produce the alcohol than what's
in the alcohol.

Surprize! It is that much cheaper. And it apparently delivers more
energy than it takes to produce.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

"The responsible, reliable analyses done well show that both corn
[kernel] ethanol and cellulosic ethanol can replace petroleum," Dale
says. He points to a 2004 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
that reported that ethanol production returns 67 percent more energy
than it consumes."

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051001/bob10.asp

A picture on price is worth a thousand words:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...eilm_e86sales/

Another couple of articles on price:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...ar/P125241.asp

http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/macon/rr/i1098_33.html

Here's Big Oil, one of the real culprits in limiting E85:

"Certainly, ethanol has its friends, like corn growers, and its
enemies. In July, Corn Cob Bob, an ethanol industry mascot, was
banished from Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa. Shell, a sponsor of
the festivities, had expressed discomfort at the mascot's
participation. "

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=4408

And yes, there does appear to be a government subsidy. But as the
market grows, and the technology matures, one would presume that those
would go away.

I also believe you have to look at some what we're spending in the
Middle East as at least partially a fuel subsidy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Is E85 the total answer? Probably not. But (as one of the articles
points out) most people that already drive an E85-equipped car don't
even know it. As nob stated, we should be doing *everything* we can do
reduce our dependence on oil. Letting people have the option, or simply
making them aware that they already have the option, is a start.

Setting and enforcing fleet mileage requirements would be another good
step.

Ah, the obligatory government force.

I look forward to a long and fruitful argument with you.

I look forward to a day when people realize that government usually does
more harm than good when it interferes in the market.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
: oups.com...
: From:
: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:44:07 GMT
:
: Right, and the New Yourk Times is your idea of intellectually honest,
and
: Teddy Kennedy is qualified to ask somebody about the morality.
:
: And the best nob can do is a strawman.
:
: Set, game, match.
:
: I"m tired.
:
: The point that is left is that there are many credible scinetists and
: University researchers that don't agree about GW being man made.
: It may very likely be nothing more than a normal weather pattern.
..............

You don't seem to get what i told you about the net influx of heat, that
is
causing the _heating up_ ; weather is responsive, the solar energy is
the driving force.
suppose for a moment the earth was a solid object, without atmosphere,
then an increase in temperature of 6 degrees centigrade would increase
the radiated heat by about 10 %, so obviously any imbalance will settle
at a new equilibrium - that's just as with any object you heat up at home.

the real situation is somewhat more complicated;-)
on the day-side, the albedo, reflectivity index, determines how much of
the incoming solar energy is reflected, on the night-side, heat is
radiated
according to surface temperature.. but wait, there's the atmosphere !
this reduces the heat radiated back into space and together with earth's
rotation and oceans creates the weather patterns.

the different gases that make up the atmosphere are part of a chemical
balance with the gases chemically bound in soil, physically dissolved
in the oceans, etc. higher temperatures shift these equations to the
gaseous state, leading to increased atmospheric pressure and more
reduction in radiated heat - positive feedback !
but wait .. luckily, this planet is filled with living matter, altering
the
picture once more. eg. vegetation takes on a different colour when
temperatures rise, changing the reflectivity. man made activity, such as
agriculture, urbanisation, emission of various gases change the balance.
bacteria, insects, other lifeforms partake in several balances.
ocean currents, wind, clouds redistribute heat.

any reasonable model thus needs more than a few dozen parameters
to 'get it right'


: Considering how little we acutally contribute as a percentage of the
total
: CO2, it's possible that we are having no effect at all.
:
Massive amounts of methane are leaking away at pump stations,
something like 5 % of total NG distributed, CH4 is a 'greenhouse gas'
Then again, a billion tons a year are produced by bacterial fermentation
in mud in rivers, oceans, estuaries, swamps.
Some 50 times the amount of atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in the
oceans. Massive amounts of nitrogen are bound as nitrates in the sea.

Etc., etc., it's exeedingly complex, no single discipline can claim
it's vision to give the real resultant picture of all these systems.

What matters not so much is the absolute level of temperature or CO2
content in the atmosphere, as these have been all over the map in the
past,
it is the _unprecedented_ rate of change that may spell trouble,
as there may not be sufficient feedback regulation , that is, the
system that took millions of years to evolve is nudged outside it's
correctable range (in the same sense that a buffer solution cannot cope
with _any_ level of disturbance, or say an amplifier that is clipping
cannot be corrected by feedback
This rate of change *does* seem to be indicating man made influences!

Unless it's simply the fact that ground measurements in many places are
unrealiable, or that the sun is burning differently and causing the
fluctuations.

: Another point to consider is that the history of fuel is for it to get
more
: efficient and cleaner. Those using the the worst fuel are the poorest.
: Instead of punishing the U.S. and those other countries that are
Industrial
: giants, why not get the poorer countries to a place where they cna use
the
: same type of fuels and get the same sort of efficiency as we do?
Bringing
: the poorer countries, using the dirtiest fuels up to out level raises
: everybody and reduces the CO2 without punishment to anybody.
:

From:
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:40:19 GMT

They didn't get the same performance, in terms of horsepower oomph.
Some said the cars seemed to run rougher than with gasoliine.

Hm. That wasn't my experience at all. There was a noticeable jump in
ooomph which I attributed to the increase in octane from 87 to 105.
This was not a blind test though.

Perhaps the problem with roughness was the same as the one mentioned in
one of the articles. E85 will clean any gunk or debris out of the
engine and fuel system. I've heard several people say that if you were
running regular gas and then switch to E85 you need to replace the fuel
filter after a few hundred miles. If you run E85 consistently this is
not a problem.

wrote:

I look forward to a day when people realize that government usually does
more harm than good when it interferes in the market.

Whilst there is much to be said in favour of that view, how do you reckon the
'market' would have dealt with the Great Depression ?

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I look forward to a day when people realize that government usually does
more harm than good when it interferes in the market.

Whilst there is much to be said in favour of that view, how do you reckon
the
'market' would have dealt with the Great Depression ?

Well the fly in the ointment of a "free market" is that the market also
needs to be fair and actually running as a free market. Just saying that the
market is free is not the same as it being free. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_crash

In modern times our familiarity with the various markets in the US tends to
blind us to how non-free markets can be in other countries.

There were at least two such flies buzzing around in 1929. One such fly was
the fact that the stock market and commodity prices were being manipulated,
and the other fly was that the world market was not free because of
excessive protectionist tariffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley

From: Pooh Bear
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:20:40 +0000

Whilst there is much to be said in favour of that view, how do you reckon the
'market' would have dealt with the Great Depression ?

'Let them eat cake.'

wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for vehicles
and electric power.



How old did you say you are?



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

Clyde Slick said:

I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for vehicles
and electric power.

How old did you say you are?

Mickey believes that an insect-based diet will extend his lifespan into
centuries.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

(dishonestly-sniped context restored)

dizzy wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

For example, E85 is running about 80 cents per gallon less than regular unleaded locally.

There's no freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was cheaper at all, and
I've read that it takes more energy to produce the alcohol than what's
in the alcohol.

Surprize! It is that much cheaper.

Nope. No way. And then consider the energy content/dollar, and
you'll look even sillier.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

From that article:

"In the US most ethanol is made from corn (maize). A US Department of
Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than
is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol."

LOL 34% more, huh? Wow, I can see where the huge cost savings is!

From: dizzy
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:59:57 GMT

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

(dishonestly-sniped context restored)

LOL. Right.

dizzy wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

For example, E85 is running about 80 cents per gallon less than regular unleaded locally.

There's no freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was cheaper at all, and
I've read that it takes more energy to produce the alcohol than what's
in the alcohol.

Surprize! It is that much cheaper.

Nope. No way. And then consider the energy content/dollar, and
you'll look even sillier.

Um, I showed you a picture of fuel prices at the pump (which you
snipped and then called *me* dishonest). You do know how to read a
picture, don't you?

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

From that article:

"In the US most ethanol is made from corn (maize). A US Department of
Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than
is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol."

LOL 34% more, huh? Wow, I can see where the huge cost savings is!

The benefit of petroleum is that it is one of the most compact sources
of fuel available. No argument here on that. As the 'easy' sources dry
up we are left with two options: continue to import from the middle
east, or extract from shale or other less efficient sources. The less
efficient extraction option will consume more energy to produce.

Further, It is dishonest to not include a comparable percentage of
energy to produce gasoline. I cannot find data on what the exact energy
ratio is currently to pump the crude, get it to port, load it on a
supertanker, ship it across the ocean, remove it at port, transport it
to a refinery, and then refine it. It cannot be more than 100%. So
where is it, one wonders? It seems it's at about .80, resulting in a
net energy LOSS of about 20% for petroleum vs. a 34% net energy GAIN
for ethanol.

The only reference that I could find was from the report that you
quoted above:

***Begin quote***

Ethanol versus Gasoline
A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research
Service Report number 814 titled "Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of
Corn Ethanol: An Update " was published in July of 2002. The Conclusion
states in part: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an
energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing
ethanol, there is a 34-percent energy gain." A similar study done in
1995 indicated only a 1.24 energy ratio. The increase is accounted for
by an increase in corn yields and greater efficiencies in the ethanol
production process. As a result, energy efficiency in the production of
ethanol is increasing.

The concept of "input efficiencies for fossil energy sources" was
introduced as a component of the study. This was meant to account for
the fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture the raw
material (crude oil) into the final energy product (gasoline).
According to the study, gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. In other
words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline
there is a 19.5 percent energy loss.

In summary, the finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel
dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for
gasoline. In other words the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or
81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline.

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

***End quote***

This is interesting, too:

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/MichaelWang1.pdf

Once again we relearn the lesson that simple statistics can be
misleading.

And we are in agreement: I can see where the cost savings are too.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I look forward to a day when people realize that government usually does
more harm than good when it interferes in the market.

Whilst there is much to be said in favour of that view, how do you reckon
the
'market' would have dealt with the Great Depression ?

Graham


If governments hadn't created it?

It seems to me the Market did deal with it, it just took a bit longer
because of Government trying to help.

Hopefully the market would have rejected Keynsian economics in favor of the
Austrian Ludwig Von Mises.
In 1927, Mises issued a prophetic warning: "The program of antiliberalism
unleashed the forces that gave rise to the great World War and, by virtue of
import and export quotas, tariffs, migration barriers, and similar measures,
has brought the nations of the world to the point of mutual isolation.
Within each nation it has led to socialist experiments whose result has been
a reduction in the productivity of labor and a concomitant increase in want
and misery. Whoever does not deliberately close his eyes to the facts must
recognize everywhere the signs of an approaching catastrophe in world
economy. Antiliberalism is heading toward a general collapse of
civilization."

Many people seem to think it was to much Capitalism that caused the
Depression when the opposite is true, it was rampant interference form
Government.

The market has not been free to act without government interference for a
very long time, so I can't say how it would have solved the Depression,
other than to grow our way out if left alone, which is what seems to have
happened. It didn't hurt that there was increased demand for heavy
equipment to fight WWII with, but I don't think WWII is the sole cause for
the end of the Great Depression. It most likely would have taken longer to
end had not government gone into debt to try and get out of it, but they
wouldn't have needed to had government not created the Depression in the
first place.

Corrective forces in the market were set in motion, once the monetary
expansion had come to an end. But the depth and duration of the Great
Depression turned out to be far greater and longer than would have normally
seemed to be required for economy-wide balance to be restored. The reasons
for the Great Depression's severity were not to be found in any inherent
failure of the market economy, but rather in the fact that political
ideologies and government policies of the 1930s hampered the recovery.

It seems axiomatic, that when government does not interfere, business along
with other human endeavors seem to thrive.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for vehicles
and electric power.



How old did you say you are?


56, but that doesn't mean it can't still happen in my lifetime, only that it
might be less likely.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message news


Clyde Slick said:

I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for
vehicles
and electric power.

How old did you say you are?

Mickey believes that an insect-based diet will extend his lifespan into
centuries.



If that were true, I'd be coming after you, bug.

From:
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:29:30 GMT

Mickey believes that an insect-based diet will extend his lifespan into
centuries.

If that were true, I'd be coming after you, bug.

So you want to eat him?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:29:30 GMT

Mickey believes that an insect-based diet will extend his lifespan into
centuries.

If that were true, I'd be coming after you, bug.

So you want to eat him?

Inability to recognize context noted.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

From: dizzy
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:59:57 GMT

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

(dishonestly-sniped context restored)

LOL. Right.

dizzy wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

For example, E85 is running about 80 cents per gallon less than regular unleaded locally.

There's no freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was cheaper at all, and
I've read that it takes more energy to produce the alcohol than what's
in the alcohol.

Surprize! It is that much cheaper.

Nope. No way. And then consider the energy content/dollar, and
you'll look even sillier.

Um, I showed you a picture of fuel prices at the pump (which you
snipped and then called *me* dishonest). You do know how to read a
picture, don't you?

Your picture showed a 55 cent difference at the pump, not an 80 cent
difference, as you claimed. In addition, here's a quote from the very
article you referenced:

quote
One sore spot is government subsidies for ethanol. John Hofland is
Minnesota Communications Manager for Flint Hills Resources, which owns
the Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount.

"The concern is, what role is the subsidy playing in artificially
dropping the price," says Hofland. "We just prefer competitive and
marketplace reasons for a certain price being what it is."
/quote

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...eilm_e86sales/

As I stated: There's no way it's that much cheaper unless it's
heavily subsidized.

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for vehicles
and electric power.



How old did you say you are?


56, but that doesn't mean it can't still happen in my lifetime, only that
it might be less likely.


What makes you think you are going to live till 120?

We are so far away from any kind of fusion power, much less for fitting it
into a car.



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

Clyde Slick wrote:

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for vehicles
and electric power.



How old did you say you are?


56, but that doesn't mean it can't still happen in my lifetime, only that
it might be less likely.


What makes you think you are going to live till 120?

We are so far away from any kind of fusion power, much less for fitting it
into a car.

The shielding alone required for atomic power makes it simply not feasible for
small vehicles.

Graham

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
When faced with overwhelming evidence that it is likely that man-made
influences are a large part of global warming, nob quotes discredited
'scientists' as his 'proof' that this is not the case.

When confronted with quotes from NASA that do not support his thesis,
nob just keeps repeating his mantra: "It isn't true; it isn't true."

What bizarre religion or belief system could be the basis of his
incredible whoppers in the face of hard evidence?

I think I have found the answer: nob is actually Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must
confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

"Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character"

--Joseph Goebbels

I think that nob must also have known John Stuart Mill. Where else
could this have come from?

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."
--John Stuart Mill

------------------------------------------------------------

You ask: Is Nob Really Dr. Joseph Goebbels?

The answer is ;no. Goebbels was malicious AND clever. No one ever
suspected your Nob of clrverness.
Ludovic Mirabel

From: dizzy
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:02:44 GMT

Your picture showed a 55 cent difference at the pump, not an 80 cent
difference, as you claimed.

Oh,you're right. The 80 cent difference was referenced in the article
header directly below the picture. Sorry that you saw some
unintelligble symbols under the picture. They're called 'words.' They
said (for those that cannot read) the difference in pump price was "as
high as 80 cents less per gallon."

In addition, here's a quote from the very
article you referenced:

quote
One sore spot is government subsidies for ethanol. John Hofland is
Minnesota Communications manager for Flint Hills Resources, which owns
the Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount.

"The concern is, what role is the subsidy playing in artificially
dropping the price," says Hofland. "We just prefer competitive and
marketplace reasons for a certain price being what it is."
/quote

Yup. If you note in my response, I agreed that it was subsidized. I
also said you need to consider the billions in tax relief to Big Oil,
and also some of what we spend in foriegn aid to the middle east as a
subsidy to Big Oil.

So you quote a refinery manager. Good that you pick an unbiased person
to quote... LOL!

As I stated: There's no way it's that much cheaper unless it's
heavily subsidized.

I think the subsidy is about 40 cents per gallon. Remove that and, at a
difference of 50-80 cents (and it is 80 cents locally) it's still
cheaper.

Say, I noticed that you chose not to address the net energy gain with
ethanol. Why not?;-)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

From: dizzy
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:02:44 GMT

Your picture showed a 55 cent difference at the pump, not an 80 cent
difference, as you claimed.

Oh,you're right. The 80 cent difference was referenced in the article
header directly below the picture. Sorry that you saw some
unintelligble symbols under the picture. They're called 'words.'

That's funny. In your last post you said to me "you know how to read
a picture, don't you"? Now you want to backpedal.

They
said (for those that cannot read) the difference in pump price was "as
high as 80 cents less per gallon."

That's called 'heresay'.

In addition, here's a quote from the very
article you referenced:

quote
One sore spot is government subsidies for ethanol. John Hofland is
Minnesota Communications manager for Flint Hills Resources, which owns
the Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount.

"The concern is, what role is the subsidy playing in artificially
dropping the price," says Hofland. "We just prefer competitive and
marketplace reasons for a certain price being what it is."
/quote

Yup. If you note in my response, I agreed that it was subsidized.

Then you admit that I'm right.

I also said you need to consider the billions in tax relief to Big Oil,
and also some of what we spend in foriegn aid to the middle east as a
subsidy to Big Oil.

So you quote a refinery manager. Good that you pick an unbiased person
to quote... LOL!

I guess you think that everything in the article that supports your
case is unbiased, while everthing that questions it is biased.
Classic dishonest illogic.

As I stated: There's no way it's that much cheaper unless it's
heavily subsidized.

I think the subsidy is about 40 cents per gallon.

Oh, you "think", huh? Don't you have any photos that disprove your
point? LOL

Remove that and, at a
difference of 50-80 cents (and it is 80 cents locally) it's still
cheaper.

Again you concede that I was right all along. I wrote "There's no
freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized", to which you responded "Surprize! It is that much
cheaper."

I was right. You were wrong.

Say, I noticed that you chose not to address the net energy gain with
ethanol. Why not?;-)

Actually, I already did. Suffering from reading comprehension
problems?

From: dizzy
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:16:37 GMT

Dizzy reaches hard and grunts and groans and tries to make an argument.
He sadly fails miserably...

Oh,you're right. The 80 cent difference was referenced in the article
header directly below the picture. Sorry that you saw some
unintelligble symbols under the picture. They're called 'words.'

That's funny. In your last post you said to me "you know how to read
a picture, don't you"? Now you want to backpedal.

So you admit that you can't read. I'm OK with that. There are programs
designed to help people like you.

"Ethanol producers see opportunity in the current siege of high gas
prices. They're selling 85 percent ethanol far below the price of
gasoline, as much as 80 cents a gallon cheaper..."

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...eilm_e86sales/

That's the caption of the picture.

That's called 'heresay'.

Well, I told you what I personally am seeing at the pump, which you
chose not to believe. It's verified in the photo and caption. I
suppose the only way to 'prove' it to you is to have you come here and
to look for yourself. That's called 'ridiculous.' LOL! What a loser.

Yup. If you note in my response, I agreed that it was subsidized.

Then you admit that I'm right.

Yes. There is a subsidy. If you look, um, say, at the post in response
to yours, I said as much.

I also said that the tax subsidy to big oil is no different, and a
portion of what we send to the Middle East in foreign aid is also in
reality a subsidy to Big Oil. You snipped that one. Why? (Don't
worry, I already know...) LOL!
So you quote a refinery manager. Good that you pick an unbiased person
to quote... LOL!
I guess you think that everything in the article that supports your
case is unbiased, while everthing that questions it is biased.
Classic dishonest illogic.

We're really reaching now, Diz. I've been quoting the USDA, and
news outlets that would not have any outward bias for the most part.
You zero in on someone in the industry with a heavy bias. You really
want to talk about intellectual dishonesty and illogic? You must be
quite stupid if you do.

I think the subsidy is about 40 cents per gallon.

Oh, you "think", huh? Don't you have any photos that disprove your
point? LOL
Um, are you OK, Diz? You seem to be getting worked up about nothing. I
said that I think the subsidy is 40 cents per gallon. "Think" means
I'm not sure. If you are, then why not say what it is? The argument
here is not whether or not there is a subsidy. Here, let me tell you
again what I said in response to your original post: "And yes, there
does appear to be a government subsidy. But as the market grows, and
the technology matures, one would presume that those would go away."
I also said, "I also believe you have to look at some what we're
spending in the
Middle East as at least partially a fuel subsidy."
Again you concede that I was right all along. I wrote "There's no
freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized", to which you responded "Surprize! It is that much
cheaper."

I was right. You were wrong.

Well, here's actually what you wrote without the dishonest snipping:

"There's no freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was cheaper at all, and
I've read that it takes more energy to produce the alcohol than what's
in the alcohol."

It's up the thread a bit if you want to verify that I haven't
altered it.

You were right on the subsidy, which I absolutely never disagreed with.
You can look at my response to your original message for 'proof.'
You were very wrong that ethanol takes more energy to produce than it
yields, which you interestingly have stopped talking about. And, sans
subsidy, it is *still* cheaper than regular gas. So you were wrong two
out of three times. The one you were right on I never disagreed with.
Nice try though.

If making several blanket statements and then choosing the one that I
never disagreed with (which also happens to be the *only* one you were
right about) constitutes 'victory' in your mind, then fine. You win!
LOL! So which oil company do you work for, Diz?

What an idiot.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for
vehicles and electric power.



How old did you say you are?


56, but that doesn't mean it can't still happen in my lifetime, only that
it might be less likely.


What makes you think you are going to live till 120?

We are so far away from any kind of fusion power, much less for fitting it
into a car.


I can dream can't I?

Look at the stuff people think will possible because they see it sci-fi
movies.

I'll settle for a solar powered vehicle that cando freeway speeds, but I'm
not looking for it im my lifetime either.

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm looking forward to a day when fusion power is perfected for
vehicles and electric power.



How old did you say you are?


56, but that doesn't mean it can't still happen in my lifetime, only
that it might be less likely.


What makes you think you are going to live till 120?

We are so far away from any kind of fusion power, much less for fitting
it into a car.


I can dream can't I?

Look at the stuff people think will possible because they see it sci-fi
movies.

I'll settle for a solar powered vehicle that cando freeway speeds, but I'm
not looking for it im my lifetime either.

There are even transportation technologies we already have, and had for some
years,
that we haven't been able to realize, because of the massive infrastructure
costs.
Such as MagLev.



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

Clyde Slick wrote:

There are even transportation technologies we already have, and had for some
years, that we haven't been able to realize, because of the massive
infrastructure costs.
Such as MagLev.

The Chinese can do it apparently !

http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archive...v_in_depth.htm

Graham