 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Cars / October 2009Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan. Piece of sh.t only runs 50 miles on a charge!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html WASHINGTON -- A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000. The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive Inc. follows a $465 million government loan to Tesla Motors Inc., purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Tesla is a California startup focusing on all-electric vehicles, with a number of celebrity endorsements that is backed by investors that have contributed to Democratic campaigns. The awards to Fisker and Tesla have prompted concern from companies that have had their bids for loans rejected, and criticism from groups that question why vehicles aimed at the wealthiest customers are getting loans subsidized by taxpayers. "This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-tax group in Washington. "This is for people to put something in their driveway that is a conversation piece. It's status symbol thing." DOE officials spent months working with Fisker on its application, touring its Irvine, Calif., and Pontiac, Mich., facilities and test-driving prototypes. Matt Rogers, who oversees the department's loan programs as a senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, said Fisker was awarded the loan after a "detailed technical review" that concluded the company could eventually deliver a highly fuel- efficient hybrid car to a mass audience. Fisker said most of its DOE loan will be used to finance U.S. production of a $40,000 family sedan that has yet to be designed. "It's the ability to drive significant change in fuel economy across a large market segment" that swayed the department to approve the Fisker loan, Mr. Rogers said. "We got quite excited." Henrik Fisker, who designed cars for BMW, Aston Martin and Tesla before starting his Fisker Automotive in 2007, said his goal is to build the first plug-in electric hybrids that won't sacrifice the luxury, performance and looks of traditional gas-powered luxury cars. The Karma will target an exclusive audience -- Gore was one of the first to sign up for one. Mr. Fisker says all new technology starts out being expensive. He pointed to flat-screen televisions that once started at $25,000 but are now affordable to the mass market. The four-door Karma, powered by a lithium-ion battery, will be able to run solely on electric power for 50 miles, and will achieve an average fuel economy of 100 mpg over the span of a year, the company says. Production is scheduled to start in December, with about 15,000 vehicles a year expected to hit the U.S. market starting next June. Many of the 1,500 people who have made deposits on the Karma are former BMW and Mercedes owners who want an environmentally friendly car without sacrificing luxury, Mr. Fisker said. He said he pitched the Karma to Mr. Gore at an event hosted by KPCB last year, and that the former vice president almost immediately submitted a down payment for the car. Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, confirmed that the former vice president backs Fisker and purchased a Karma. "He believes that a global shift of the automobile fleet toward electric vehicles, accompanying a shift toward renewable-energy generation, represents an important part of a sensible strategy for solving the climate crisis," she said in a statement. Fisker's top investors include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a veteran Silicon Valley venture-capital firm of which Gore is a partner. Employees of KPCB have donated more than $2.2 million to political campaigns, mostly for Democrats, including President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign contributions. Officials at Kleiner Perkins didn't return requests for comment. Asked whether Mr. Gore had any influence on Fisker's application, the DOE's Rogers said, "None at all." "This is a very attractive, very across-party-lines kind of vehicle," Mr. Rogers said. "All of the detailed due diligence [was] done by independent review teams." Other Fisker investors include Eco-Drive (Capital) Partners LLC, an investment consortium, and Qatar Investment Authority, a state-run investor based in Qatar. Fisker's government loans will come from a $25 billion program established by Congress in 2007 to help auto makers invest in the technology to meet a new congressional mandate to improve fuel efficiency. In June, the DOE awarded the first $8 billion from the program to Ford Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., and Tesla, which are all developing electric cars. Some companies that have been turned down for loans from DOE say they did not get much feedback from the department about their applications. O. John Coletti, president of EcoMotors International of Troy, Mich., said his company applied for a $20 million loan from the agency last December, and last month got a one-page rejection letter from the loan program's director, Lachlan Seward. EcoMotors' lead investor is Vinod Khosla, himself a former Kleiner Perkins partner and a longtime campaign contributor to Republicans and Democrats alike. "I don't have an issue with the winners … it's possible somebody has better ideas than us," Mr. Coletti said. At the same time, he said, "More feedback from DOE on a timely basis would be wonderful. When you're running a business you'd like to know whether you're going to be able to take advantage of this opportunity." Mr. Coletti's company -- which makes diesel engines and is still waiting to hear from the Department on a separate loan application to help it build a manufacturing facility -- isn't without politically well-connected patrons, either. Its major investor is Vinod Khosla, himself a former Kleiner Perkins partner who has donated to campaigns. Scott Redmond, CEO of XP Vehicles Inc., said he met with DOE officials twice in Washington after applying for a $40 million loan to develop a $15,000 to $25,000 hybrid, and that both times he was told his application looked good. Since receiving a rejection letter from DOE in August, Redmond said, he has been unable to get a full explanation as to why his request was turned down. Mr. Rogers said he was not at liberty to discuss individual applications that had been turned down, but said the process has been handled fairly and objectively. > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html > ..."This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a > spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-tax > group in Washington. "This is for people to put something in > their driveway that is a conversation piece. It's status symbol > thing." Hah! When you're a Democrat, it's different (borrowing a phrase from Jim Quinn). Elitism in its highest form. > The four-door Karma, powered by a lithium-ion battery, will be > able to run solely on electric power for 50 miles, and will > achieve an average fuel economy of 100 mpg over the span of a > year, the company says... Oh boy. Here we go with the b.s. numbers. So it gets 100 mpg. So let's ignore the electric bill, eh? Numbers like that are meaningless unless you're telling the whole story, which of course they never do. Problem is that our politicians (and the general public that is into this sort of thing) don't have enough brains to know when they are only being told less than half the story when it comes to technology - hence they believe in "global warming" (oh - excuse me - "climate change" - I keep forgetting that they have quit saying "global warming" now that even idiots can't ignore the fact that things are actually cooling off) and things like this *new* Al Gore debacle.  SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ignore the fact that things are actually cooling off) and things like this > *new* Al Gore debacle. So where's the f.cking solution YOU'VE come up with, a.shole? WS >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >So where's the f.cking solution YOU'VE come up with, a.shole? >WS Well thought out and cohernt reply... >>> Oh boy. Here we go with the b.s. numbers. So it gets 100 mpg. So >>> let's ignore the electric bill, eh? Numbers like that are meaningless [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Well thought out and cohernt reply... ROTFLMAO! Signatureperfectreign www.perfectreign.com || www.ecmplace.com a turn signal is a statement, not a request >>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Well thought out and cohernt reply... Back at ya' Hoss. WS >>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html >>>>> ..."This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Back at ya' Hoss. > WS Boy this guy really knows how to make a convincing argument. Two posts in a row. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') he must be a GM driver >>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html >>>>>> ..."This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Boy this guy really knows how to make a convincing argument. Two posts in > a row. >>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html >>>>>> ..."This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Boy this guy really knows how to make a convincing argument. Two posts >in a row. With significant litary content, too! nice response..... >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > So where's the f.cking solution YOU'VE come up with, a.shole? > WS Right. like he has to have a solution to know this one isn't it. I don't have a solution to fix what's wrong in Washington D.C., but I know THAT ain't right :-{ >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html >>> ..."This is not for average Americans," said Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > So where's the f.cking solution YOU'VE come up with, a.shole? > WS Geez - Why the personal hostility? Tell me what the problem is first, then I'll tell you a solution that really works, not just some feel-good . Doing stuff that causes more harm than the problem you're claiming to be fixing and using meaningless "data" to sell it sure isn't the answer. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message > Oh boy. Here we go with the b.s. numbers. So it gets 100 mpg. So > let's ignore the electric bill, eh? > Bill Putney How much does a gallon of electricity cost, Bill ;>) > "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message >> Oh boy. Here we go with the b.s. numbers. So it gets 100 mpg. So >> let's ignore the electric bill, eh? Bill Putney > > How much does a gallon of electricity cost, Bill ;>) Umm - about the same as a kWhr of gasoline? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') what.....about 10 lbs of coal or a spoon full of uranium depending your electric plant? >> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message >>> Oh boy. Here we go with the b.s. numbers. So it gets 100 mpg. So [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Umm - about the same as a kWhr of gasoline? > what.....about 10 lbs of coal or a spoon full of uranium depending > your electric plant? As of 9/25, coal costs $52.30 per ton, call it 30 cents for your 10 pound bag of coal. The waste product can be used for roads or construction materials. Burn and done. We're talking coal, not municipal trash. U308 reactor fuel averages about $44-69 per pound, but costs $700 per pound to reprocess. Direct disposal would be about half that figure, but it does not include long term storage costs, monitoring, or repackaging if the container eventually fails, as it will with all nuclear waste storage. The United States does not reprocess spent fuel as they do in Europe. Reprosessing or direct disposal still carries the same long term storage costs etc. According to the DOE, the cost of reprocessing the estimated 2200 metric tons of spent fuel per year in the US alone would exceed $5 billion. Again, keep in mind that there are additional costs etc. Currently, the over 430 active reactors in the world consume 176,000,000 pounds of U308 per year. Spent fuel is the most radioactive of all waste materials and may have to be stored for hundreds or thousands of years using current methods. >>> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message >>>> Oh boy. Here we go with the b.s. numbers. So it gets 100 mpg. So [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Umm - about the same as a kWhr of gasoline? >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html > >WASHINGTON -- A tiny car company backed by former Vice President >Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government Over half a billion dollars for another Gore scam... Gore, the environmental disastar beyond belief! And, no that half billion will never be repaid! > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:08:37 +0200, "Major Debacle" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > environmental disastar beyond belief! And, no that half billion will > never be repaid! Gore is a partner in a firm which invested in Fisker. Your rant about Gore is stupid, and that's being polite. On Sep 30, 5:27 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:08:37 +0200, "Major Debacle" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Gore is a partner in a firm which invested in Fisker. Your rant about > Gore is stupid, and that's being polite. Gore is not stupid. He is GENIUS. And,alas, very CROOKED. . He has learned how to take an imaginery "event", global wamring,(or in the year 2009, "climate change"), and turn it into a source of vast income for him. Whether it is in recieving millions in government grants, raking in tens of millions in stocks of "green" companies, or the 200,000 dollars a pop he comands for speaking engagements, all the while jet-setting the planet in his evil, carbon spewing private plane, he just keeps getting richer and richer. I only wish I were as smart as he. But glad I AM a little more honest. In article <a6913f76-6cbc-4264-8095-fcc09bf55b98@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > Gore is not stupid. He is GENIUS. And,alas, very CROOKED. . He has > learned how to take an imaginery "event", global wamring,(or in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But glad I AM a little more honest. IMO Gore is a very smart salesman. If he really understood the facts of GW I doubt he'd distort the truth as he has to make so much money. Well OK, he's also a very smart crook! <:) > On Sep 30, 5:27 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Gore is not stupid. He is GENIUS. And,alas, very CROOKED. . He has > learned how to take an imaginery "event", global wamring,( If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the world say it's real? Every scientific organization? Why do all the articles in scientific journals say it's real? >or in the > year 2009, "climate change"), A term a Bush pollster told the Bush people to use as it was less "alarming." >and turn it into a source of vast income > for him. Whether it is in recieving millions in government grants, > raking in tens of millions in stocks of "green" companies, or the > 200,000 dollars a pop he comands for speaking engagements, all the > while jet-setting the planet in his evil, carbon spewing private > plane, he just keeps getting richer and richer. I thought you right-wingers admired greed. And I thought you considered the rich to be harder-working and smarter than everybody else. > I only wish I were as smart as he. > > But glad I AM a little more honest. > If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the > world say it's real?... News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site. > Every scientific organization?... News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site. Why do all the > articles in scientific journals say it's real? News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the >> world say it's real?... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in > hard to find pages of their web site. What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it. And, what do the corrected data show? >> Every scientific organization?... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in > hard to find pages of their web site. So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those from NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at? > Why do all the >> articles in scientific journals say it's real? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in > hard to find pages of their web site. While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very little data that don't support that global warming is real. Jeff >>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the >>> world say it's real?... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Jeff Most non-supportive "data" came out of the Bush/Cheney editing pool. Speaking of which, why is it that no Bush/Cheney-backed car firm had an idea good enough to be funded? Any innovative ideas at all? Or did they put the 'no' in innovation. >>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the >>> world say it's real?... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it. >And, what do the corrected data show? This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then they covered up... Been well documented. >>> Every scientific organization?... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those from >NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at? Huh? >> Why do all the >>> articles in scientific journals say it's real? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very >little data that don't support that global warming is real. There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing to belive the sky is falling. >Jeff >>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the >>>> world say it's real?... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then > they covered up... Been well documented. Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim. >>>> Every scientific organization?... >>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Huh? You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change. Nor are the data in question that only data that NASA has. >>> Why do all the >>>> articles in scientific journals say it's real? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing > to belive the sky is falling. Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in the world both say otherwise? You say there is nothing happening at all. However, CO2 has been proven to trap heat (infrared radiation) and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up. The question is how much is this going to affect global climate in the future? Already, global average temperatures have risen markedly, particularly in the last 15 or 20 years. In addition, large amounts of artic and antartic ice have melted. The ice caps on mountains all over the world are disappearing. I chose to believe that global warming is true because all of the data back up the theory. Jeff >> Jeff >>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the >>>>> world say it's real?... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim. It is - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. You'll have to find it yourself. If we spoon-fed it to you, you'd not believe it anyway. You'll believe what you want anyway. In fact, it's been documented before on this very news group - there - your homework is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it. >>>>> Every scientific organization?... >>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change. Nor > are the data in question that only data that NASA has. Funny how before the mistakes were revealed the GW'ers would always point to the NASA data and say "LOOK - the most respected scientific organization of the U.S. Gov't says so - so it is indisputable", then when it turns out they faked data - and on more than one occasion - it's "These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change". Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape curve of increasing temperature over time. That's just one example of majorly faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains snow pack data faking (actually cherry picking mins and max's to force the conclusion) - Assistant State Climatologist in Washintgton state got removed from his position for blowing the whistle on that one - that's how honest and pure they were about "science". When data was corrected, it showed the warming that was claimed was a lie. Duh! Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you control your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that you allow air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from the station and then soon after report a temperature rise. (2) When you falsify October's data by copying over September's data to show warming over the previous year, be aware that when you have to copy one day twice to make a 30 day month fit the 31 day month, once people see the mistake and correct the data, it will be pretty obvious that it had to be intentional fakery. Nice try. Busted! (3) Oh - and don't launch satellites to monitor actual temperatures that contradict the trends "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based measurement data and throw all of your faulty warming models into a cocked hat. > Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in > the world both say otherwise? You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth? But really - you'd have to ask them. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the >>>>>> world say it's real?... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > been documented before on this very news group - there - your homework > is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it. Yes, I looked at it. It turns out NASA correct the data, and it is still clear that the globe is getting warming. So, no, you can't support your claim. If you think you can, go ahead. >>>>>> Every scientific organization?... >>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand > climate and climate change". First, no one said that it is "indisputable." Nothing is. Did they fake data or was there an error in the data? The answer: There was an error in the data which they corrected. Those are two very different things. > Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global > warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from the station > and then soon after report a temperature rise. Really? Demonstrate that what they do is sloppy. Do they even have temperature measuring stations? Or is that a different gov't agency? > (2) When you falsify > October's data by copying over September's data to show warming over the > previous year, be aware that when you have to copy one day twice to make > a 30 day month fit the 31 day month, once people see the mistake and > correct the data, it will be pretty obvious that it had to be > intentional fakery. Nice try. Busted! Was this intential or an error? Unfortunately, when an organization tries to get data out faster, there will be some errors. This is an example of how one organization made and error and corrected it. > (3) Oh - and don't launch > satellites to monitor actual temperatures that contradict the trends > "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based measurement data and throw all > of your faulty warming models into a cocked hat. There were some errors. There are always are. However, the trends are overwhelmingly clear. Just like the trends of leaves appearing on trees earlier in the spring (or winter), snow on the ground for less time of the year, decreasing ice caps on mountains and smaller glaciers. >> Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals >> in the world both say otherwise? > > You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth? But > really - you'd have to ask them. As a member of AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the publisher of Science), I am part of them. And the answer is that the data overwhelmingly support global warming. Jeff >>>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the >>>>>>> world say it's real?... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Yes, I looked at it. It turns out NASA correct the data, and it is still > clear that the globe is getting warming. No such thing is clear. NASA corrects data only when publicly embarrassed into doing so. > So, no, you can't support your claim. If you think you can, go ahead. As I said already done. >>>>>>> Every scientific organization?... >>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > First, no one said that it is "indisputable." Nothing is. Yet above, you said it is clear. Can it be both clear and not indisputable? > Did they fake > data or was there an error in the data? The answer: There was an error > in the data which they corrected. Those are two very different things. Sorry - we're supposed to believe that data from a 30 day month gets copied to a 31 day month, and one day just happens to get duplicated to fill in the extra day. Sorry - not credible. Funny how all the errors that get discovered after the fact are in the direction of pushing the data to show warming over time - never the opposite. >> Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" >> global warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Really? Demonstrate that what they do is sloppy. Do they even have > temperature measuring stations? Or is that a different gov't agency? Maybe it is of another agency. So they use the data to publish conclusions and attempt to shape policy. So tell me how it affects this discussion one iota who owns the stations that they report data from. If the owner is sloppy but they use the data, does that make their data any better or themselves any more or less credible? (answer: no) >> (2) When you falsify October's data by copying over September's data >> to show warming over the previous year, be aware that when you have to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tries to get data out faster, there will be some errors. This is an > example of how one organization made and error and corrected it. Go ahead and explain the 31 days of data being altered by duplicating one day to fill in the extra day of the 31 day normally colder month. Like I said, it's funny how the errors *always* push the data in the direction of showing warming aver time - never the reverse. Defies credibility. >> (3) Oh - and don't launch satellites to monitor actual temperatures >> that contradict the trends "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > earlier in the spring (or winter), snow on the ground for less time of > the year, decreasing ice caps on mountains and smaller glaciers. Much of that is cherry picked out of *lots* of data. Where the desired trend doesn't exist, that parameter is not discussed. Then, again, there's the example of the Cascade Mountain snow pack where "mistakes" were made. What were the "mistakes"? When they wanted to show warmer, they skewed the sample point to be the nearest local maxima, and when they wanted to show cooler, they skewed it to nearest local minima. That *can't* be random error. Then they removed the guy who pointed it out from his position as Assistant State Climatologist. Yeah - real "science" going on there. >>> Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals >>> in the world both say otherwise? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Science; the publisher of Science), I am part of them. And the answer is > that the data overwhelmingly support global warming. Ahh - I see - so you are involved in the inner workings of the organization at the highest levels? I doubt it. You or your employer pay annual or bi-annual dues to maintain your membership. You might even participate at some level. Doesn't prove anything. The word "science" has been so misused and abused that it has no credibility when it is used to try to establish authority anymore. And the global warmers have done more to damage the reputation of true science than practically anything else in modern times. It is a false- or pseudo-science if there ever was one. Yet it effects policy change that is very damaging. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in >>>>>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > Ahh - I see - so you are involved in the inner workings of the > organization at the highest levels? I doubt it. No, but I am a proud member. I have been for years. > You or your employer > pay annual or bi-annual dues to maintain your membership. You might [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > warmers have done more to damage the reputation of true science than > practically anything else in modern times. That's incorrect. You have so far have shown that one dataset had some errors in it that were corrected. That's it. You have failed to address why so much ice is melting at the poles and on the tops of mountains, why the ocean levels are rising, why the leaves appear earlier in the year and stay on trees longer, why trees and other wildlife that are adapted to particular climates are moving north or up mountains (where is is cooler) or how the fact the CO2, methane and other gases trap heat. > It is a false- or > pseudo-science if there ever was one. Yet it effects policy change that > is very damaging. That's incorrect. The evidence that global warming is occurring is overwhleming. And, the models are getting better. As new data are generated, the data are incorporated into the models or the models are rejected. This is how science is done. Jeff >>> As a member of AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of >>> Science; the publisher of Science), I am part of them. And the answer [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That's incorrect. You have so far have shown that one dataset had some > errors in it that were corrected... No - two - the air conditioner fiasco, and the copying September data into October (and somehow mysteriously copying the one day twice to fill in the 31 days - quite by accident you understand). :) > That's it. You have failed to address > why so much ice is melting at the poles and on the tops of mountains, > why the ocean levels are rising, why the leaves appear earlier in the > year and stay on trees longer, why trees and other wildlife that are > adapted to particular climates are moving north or up mountains (where > is is cooler) or how the fact the CO2, methane and other gases trap heat. You are self-selecting your sources to reinforce your beliefs. Nothing I can say will convince you, which I started out saying. And that's OK. I am not responsible for your beliefs. Let's talk in another 5 years (but unfortunately the politicians will have possibly done irreparable damage due to acting on this false science). The real die hards will be those that can "scientifically" explain how global warming causes ice ages (not to say that we are headed for an ice age, but to explain what we have already started seeing and will continue to see, that's the kind of insanity one will have to exhibit to keep denying the reality). To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign: "It's the sun, stupid." >> It is a false- or pseudo-science if there ever was one. Yet it >> effects policy change that is very damaging. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > generated, the data are incorporated into the models or the models are > rejected. This is how science is done. Yeah - like they had to do when the NASA satellite proved that the models were absolutely worthless - that things had actually been cooling off, or at best, not heating up nearly as their false models had been saying they were. Oh - BTW - read *this* NASA web page: http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm (hey - it's on a NASA site, so it must be true, right?) "Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made 'Greenhouse Effect'." Like I said elsewhere: The amount of changes they are talking about - less than a degree C over a century - are less than the resolution and repeatability of their measurements. It's laughable. "Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity. "In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods." Anyway - when you keep reading, you find out that now they're saying it's water vapor, not CO2, that has the effects. So the question arises: If that's the case, why are we supposed to control CO2 emissions? Oh - and don't forget to check out this page linked from that one: http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm You are one of a dwindling set of people who are called scientists who still believe the religion of global warming. Unfortunately the politicians are lagging the true science - some possibly honestly doing so, some due to vested interests or corruption (yeah - shocking, I know). Why don't you ask some of your science buddies why they are now calling it "Climate Change" and have suddenly stopped calling it "Global Warming" (hint: It's because they realize that they can no longer claim it is warming, but they can't yet publicly admit it - by the time people start asking them why they used to call it global warming when it clearly is cooling off, they will be able to say with a straight face: "Oh I never believed that - those were some *earlier* well-intentioned kooks who didn't quite understand what was going on. All *real* scientists know it was cooling off." But the thing they will have a hard time explaining is why they forced everyone to reduce CO2 emissions when it is claimed that CO2 causes warming and yet things were cooling off and not warming up - but I'm sure by then they will have come up with something equivalent to "Well, you see - warming causes ice ages."). SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it is something which can be measured. The disagreement occurs when the cause is trumpeted to be man's puny efforts as opposed to natural occurrences. The climatic models are so complex that there are very few people who could pretend to understand them. The result is "thousands of dermatologists all agree on the best way to treat your brain cancer". The political nonsense and public stupidity lead to waste in the trillions. A favorite bully boy target is the automobile. There are few industries that can match the improvement made here. They simply choose to take a number and lower it no matter how it is to be achieved or if the effort is better expended elsewhere. The burning of rain forests adds more pollution than the ENTIRE PLANET's content of autos. No regulation there. Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired power plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people who refuse to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter stupidity ingrained in the "green" movement. So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s. Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30 times it has melted before based on historic samples? The number of hurricanes! But gee, historical testing shows we are in a "mild" 1500 year hurricane cycle. Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars which could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again? > Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it is > something which can be measured. Actually the data is showing cooling off now. But that's the only thing you said that I disagree with. > The disagreement occurs when the cause is trumpeted to be man's puny > efforts as opposed to natural occurrences... Hah! Yeah - like solar output, > The climatic models are so > complex that there are very few people who could pretend to understand > them... Besides the point that they only work when tailored for the actual data you use to build them to prove that warming is taking place, but miserably fail when used for projections with new data. And yet when it is proven that controlling CO2 isn't going to fix anything (and in fact with what little effect it has, it will move things an immeasurable amount in the wrong direction anyway), they will continue to create a new false economy built around it because they want to build their own self-enriching industry based on it (think: Al Gore). Everyone but them will suffer. > The result is "thousands of dermatologists all agree on the best > way to treat your brain cancer". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter stupidity > ingrained in the "green" movement. Exactly. Their solution is to destroy the coal industry (Obama vowed to do so) and to do no nuclear. BTW - are we still wasting tax money on bio-fuels wasting even more energy and at the same time making a food source scarcer and dricing prices up? Why don't they fix the problems they have already created instead of creating new problems? Because there's money to be made at the expense of everyone else - all in the name of helping everybody. > So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was > inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s. > > Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30 > times it has melted before based on historic samples? And the overall "increase" in melting is fabricated by cherry picking the data. > The number of hurricanes! But gee, historical testing shows we are in a > "mild" 1500 year hurricane cycle. Oh well then we must discontinue looking at that parametric. Look instead over hear at the snow pack data that we picked local minima on during times we wanted to claim higher temperatures and local maxima during times we wanted to claim lower temperatures. > Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars which... Yep - inflicting the worst possible economic damage possible in the name of fixing a non-problem. > ...could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it is > something which can be measured. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > trillions. A favorite bully boy target is the automobile. There are few > industries that can match the improvement made here. Really? Cars don't get that much better mileage than those made in the '60s and '70s. About a 50% or so increase from 1975. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1975_feg.pdf > They simply choose > to take a number and lower it no matter how it is to be achieved or if > the effort is better expended elsewhere. The burning of rain forests > adds more pollution than the ENTIRE PLANET's content of autos. No > regulation there. Unfortunately, we're also running out of oil, especially oil that can easily be refined into gasoline. And we're using oil faster than ever. Last year, a huge amount of oil was found. But that oil is going to be more expensive than ever to get out of the ground. > Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired power > plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people who refuse > to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter stupidity > ingrained in the "green" movement. It's also possible to charge the cars with power generated overnight, when the electricity generation is more efficient. In addition, the energy used to generate the electricity is less than the energy used by a gasoline motor to run the car. So a net energy savings occurs if the right type of energy is used to generate the electricity. > So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was > inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s. Really? Not everyone agreed in the 70s and 80s. And not everyone agrees, today. > Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30 > times it has melted before based on historic samples? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars which > could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again? We have a more energy-efficient economy. THat's a good thing. Jeff >> Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it >> is something which can be measured. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > '60s and '70s. About a 50% or so increase from 1975. > http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1975_feg.pdf This the typical "dumb" response, tying efficiency to mileage. Average mileage may be nearly the same but customer preferences and gov requirements mean the same mileage is coming from larger, more powerful, more luxurious and dramatically safer vehicles. >> They simply choose to take a number and lower it no matter how it is >> to be achieved or if the effort is better expended elsewhere. The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Last year, a huge amount of oil was found. But that oil is going to be > more expensive than ever to get out of the ground. Another old chestnut. There is no oil "shortage" now or even foreseeable. And while "Arabian" style crude is a small part of the totals, oil is the only practical choice because the alternatives cost astronomically more AND most of then from source to use to disposal have a GREATER net impact on the environment. >> Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired >> power plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a gasoline motor to run the car. So a net energy savings occurs if the > right type of energy is used to generate the electricity. The old spend trillions on infrastructure to save a few bucks theory. >> So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was >> inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s. > > Really? Not everyone agreed in the 70s and 80s. And not everyone agrees, > today. You should check the magazine covers with the scientific community banding together to study the problem. About the same degree as today. >> Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30 >> times it has melted before based on historic samples? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jeff If someone invents a new insulation and it costs me $10k to replace my $200 worth of attic fiberglass and it saves me $42/yr in fuel oil, I would have a different description. It is equivalent to the imbeciles that buy a Prius to "save money", even when you do the math and show them the payback period. Or the "do gooder" who buys it to "set an example", even when studies show the entire process from creating the battery/car to disposing of it at the end of its life have a net NEGATIVE compared to std vehicles. >>> Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it >>> is something which can be measured. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > requirements mean the same mileage is coming from larger, more powerful, > more luxurious and dramatically safer vehicles. Not really. Compare this to A/C efficiency or refrigerator efficiency. There is a much better increase in efficiency compared to cars. And let's compare this to computers, which are millions of times faster, able to store millions of times more data, and are able to send data to other computers millions of times faster. Gee, A/C and refrigerators don't even compare. The fact is that to do what cars do, get people and things from point A to point B, they do so using almost as much fuel as they did 30 years ago. >>> They simply choose to take a number and lower it no matter how it is >>> to be achieved or if the effort is better expended elsewhere. The [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > astronomically more AND most of then from source to use to disposal have > a GREATER net impact on the environment. Except that the supply and demand are nearly the same amount. And remember what happened when the demand went up a just a bit more about 1 or 1.5 years ago? High gas prices. That the Middle East no longer supplies as high a proportion of the world's oil supply, the supply is still limited. >>> Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired >>> power plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The old spend trillions on infrastructure to save a few bucks theory. Yet, the fact is that by conservation, we become more competitive than other countries. The alternative is that we become less competitive. It may be old, but it is true. >>> So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was >>> inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You should check the magazine covers with the scientific community > banding together to study the problem. About the same degree as today. Really? Time magazine is not the voice of the scientific community. The fact is that the scientific community did not support the global cooling the way it has examined and supported with data global heating today. If I am incorrect, support your argument. >>> Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30 >>> times it has melted before based on historic samples? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > $200 worth of attic fiberglass and it saves me $42/yr in fuel oil, I > would have a different description. That's a straw-man argument. > It is equivalent to the imbeciles that buy a Prius to "save money", even > when you do the math and show them the payback period. Some people realize that the environment is more important than just money. (Unfortunately, no one has accounted for the environmental cost of making the batteries.) > Or the "do > gooder" who buys it to "set an example", even when studies show the > entire process from creating the battery/car to disposing of it at the > end of its life have a net NEGATIVE compared to std vehicles. Really? What studies? Be specific, please. Jeff FWIW it seems to me that there does seem to be a temperature increase but to me the question remains whether in an historical context it (and other changes) means that much, and whether humans have had such an impact, all of which have been raised in this thread so far. Certainly carbon dioxide levels are higher than when I was a kid. I remember learning 2.5% (that's in the 60s) and now it is 3.5%, which is, of course, an enormous increase, though this level is not as high as peak levels seen in the historic past. That oil will run out makes sense, whatever we may be discovering now, since we are using it at a rate much faster than petroleum deposit creation. The only question is when, though it may not be as soon as some doom-sayers seem to think. I certainly agree that an enormous amount of hooey is said and done in the name of 'greeness'. The Prius (already mentioed) and, indeed, all electrical cars are inferior to modern diesels. Most of recycling is daft from an energy or raw material point of view. Glass especially, since the essential raw material, sand, is infinitely available. As I understand it, about the only thing genuinely worth recycling is aluminium since the energy required to reprocess the metal is a lot less that that required to process ore. All the rest ought to be incinerated (not sent to landfill sites), but everyone is a NIMBY (not in my backyard). While we are at it, the heat generated from such an incinerator could be used for heating water, especially for homes in the vicinity. And do on. DAS To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling" --- [...] > Not really. Compare this to A/C efficiency or refrigerator efficiency. > There is a much better increase in efficiency compared to cars. And let's > compare this to computers, which are millions of times faster, able to > store millions of times more data, and are able to send data to other > computers millions of times faster. Gee, A/C and refrigerators don't even > compare. [...] > Except that the supply and demand are nearly the same amount. And remember > what happened when the demand went up a just a bit more about 1 or 1.5 > years ago? High gas prices. > > That the Middle East no longer supplies as high a proportion of the > world's oil supply, the supply is still limited. [...] > FWIW it seems to me that there does seem to be a temperature increase... LOL! Even if you believe the GW'ers, it's a whopping 0.6°C over a century. Don't tell anybody, but it's dropping now due to decrease in solar activity. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > >>>> erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > been documented before on this very news group - there - your homework > is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it. So tell us, what scientific sources did you consult to come to this conclusion? > >>>>> Every scientific organization?... > >>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand > climate and climate change". You are a liar. > Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global > warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the > formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape curve of > increasing temperature over time. Turns out that's wrong. The National Academy of Sciences validated Mann's work, and 10 other reconsructions of temp. agree with it. > That's just one example of majorly > faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains snow pack data [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pure they were about "science". When data was corrected, it showed the > warming that was claimed was a lie. Duh! No it didn't. What scientific sources did you get this from? > Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you control > your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that you allow [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based measurement data and throw all > of your faulty warming models into a cocked hat. Hint: Don't post lies from right-wing web sites. > > Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in > > the world both say otherwise? > > You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth? But > really - you'd have to ask them. Yeah, all science is in on a vast conspiracy and only Bill Putney sees the truth! Pathetic. > -- > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') >>>>>> erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So tell us, what scientific sources did you consult to come to this > conclusion? NASA. But like I said, you won't believe it no matter what. >>>>>>> Every scientific organization?... >>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You are a liar. Very convincing argument. If you check the prior post, I was direct quoting exactly what someone in this thread had said, and yet I'm a liar when I actually quote what someone said. You just stuck your foot in it. I say something that is a direct quote documented in this very discussion, and I am a liar. BTW - Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals don't work anymore. People have become immune to them. So you need to learn to discuss with factual information rather than using the worn out methods. >> Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global >> warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Turns out that's wrong. The National Academy of Sciences validated > Mann's work, and 10 other reconsructions of temp. agree with it. Ummm - that's the point. No matter the numbers you put into it, it shows the rise in temperature as you move time forward. Appreciate the confirmation of the false science even though you see it as proving the "science" that is false. >> That's just one example of majorly >> faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains snow pack data [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No it didn't. What scientific sources did you get this from? It happened. Google is spelled g-o-o-g-l-e. Again - it happened. >> Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you control >> your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that you allow [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hint: Don't post lies from right-wing web sites. Again, Saul Alinsky and his methods are dead. >>> Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in >>> the world both say otherwise? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pathetic. Can't argue the facts, so you continue to revert to the Saul Alinsky methods. Very convincing. And scientific. From Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals": 1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." 2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication. 3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) 4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity." 5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." 6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." 7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...." 8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose." 9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." 10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign." 11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative." 12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the >>>>> world say it's real?... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim. If you don't know the basics, don't know the history, why the hell shoudl anyone waste their time trying to show you the facts? > There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, > is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even > happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing > to belive the sky is falling. Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. The biggest driver? Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! LOL! (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the 30's - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. When you look at the false NASA data, it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when you look at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the 30's. Talk about your inconvenient truth!) :) SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, >> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the 30's. Talk > about your inconvenient truth!) :) Actually, the corrected NASA data show it was in the last few years. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ If I am incorrect show the link that demonstrates this. Jeff >>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, >>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt 1934 and 2008 tied. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, >>>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html That's one of many stations. In addition, the data I am talking about are global averages, not just the averages for the US. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ > http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt > > 1934 and 2008 tied. When you look at the US highest temps and the highest global temps, you will see that there are differences: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc Jeff Are the >> http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html > That's one of many stations. That is correct, yet the very small temperature changes that are being talked about were affected enough to make a significant difference when averaged over all the data stations. You will even see references on the NASA site that the minor changes being shown are smaller than the resolution of the data. Read up on gage R&R. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > >>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, > >>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > -- Are the 48 US states the globe? > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') >> >>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by >> >>> man [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Are the 48 US states the globe? So how do you claim the whole world, when there have only been precision measureing devises to the degree claimed used in the last maby 100 years, being generous. and no possible way to know the world temps before that, as much of it not even connected before that. this is a bunch of PROJECTION with no historical possibility other than generally large changes. your scientific basic is CRAP. No one knows either way and can not prove it. They are "all" using computer modles on both sides and its CRAP. A bunch of idiots guessing and we are supposed to change how the world works on this????????? What a bunch of retards. KB >> Bill Putney >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >> address with the letter 'x') SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others > > There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, > > is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. The biggest driver? > Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! LOL! The 2000s are the hottest decade ever. How is that cooling off? > (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the 30's > - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. Uh, you forget a lot. It's 2005, then 1998 and 2007 tied. 8 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the 2000s. > When you look at the false > NASA data, Oh BS. >it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when you look > at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the 30's. Talk > about your inconvenient truth!) :) Yes, talk about truth. Talk about science. Please learn some. > -- > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') >>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, >>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Uh, you forget a lot. It's 2005, then 1998 and 2007 tied. 8 of the > hottest years on record have occurred in the 2000s. Here's one from a very obscure right-wing web site - OH WAIT - it's NASA's own data and on their own web site (after they corrected the false data)!! Imagine that. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt 1934 and 2008 tied. "Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900." SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > >> erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then > they covered up... Been well documented. No, it is not. It's the stuff of right-wing web sites, the same conspiracy nuts who claim Bush was behind 9/11 and Obama is not a US citizen. > >>> Every scientific organization?... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man, Yes there is. Every national science academy, every scientific organization in the world says so. All the articles in scientific journals say so. Do yourself a favor: Read some science. Right-wing web sites are not good sources. > is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even > happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing > to belive the sky is falling. > > >Jeff No, we are choosing to believe the science instead of right-wing propaganda and idiotic conspiracy theories. "dr_jeff" <utz@msu.edu> wrote in message > While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the > scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very > little data that don't support that global warming is real. > > Jeff There are those who will bend data and observations to try to promote their agenda, for sure. This issue is very complex. There is simultaneous damage by greenhouse effect, and temporal cooling effects. The wise bird never sh.ts in his nest. > "dr_jeff" <utz@msu.edu> wrote in message >> While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > effect, and temporal cooling effects. > The wise bird never sh.ts in his nest. What are temporal cooling effects? Yet, we're increasing greenhouse gases. Does this sound like the intelligent choice? jeff > What are temporal cooling effects? > > Yet, we're increasing greenhouse gases. Does this sound like the > intelligent choice? > > jeff Temporal effects as in short term cooling and heating cycles, identifiable but seeming to contradict (to some) the upward trend. Increasing greenhouse gases doesnt seem to be wise, hence the nest comment. On Oct 5, 5:31 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 30, 5:27 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > world say it's real? Every scientific organization? Why do all the > articles in scientific journals say it's real? They don't. Just the ones you want to believe do. The ones that forget that science and politics are not one and the same. > >or in the > > year 2009, "climate change"), > > A term a Bush pollster told the Bush people to use as it was less > "alarming." Naw. Just covers a lot more ground. Cooler temps than normal, more rain than predicted when alarmists scream "DROUGHT!!!", Fewer hurricanes than predicted, can more easily be attributed to "climate change" than global warming. All you have to do is "prove" something is out of the ordinary, climate-wise. > >and turn it into a source of vast income > > for him. Whether it is in recieving millions in government grants, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >This right-wing does not admire liars, crooks and thieves. All can be used to describe AlGore, and his host of left-wing extremists. Al Capone probably worker harder and was smarter than most anybody. He was rich. Was he a good guy???? > > I only wish I were as smart as he. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html > [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > applications that had been turned down, but said the process has > been handled fairly and objectively. http://www.fiskercarforum.com/?p=363 Anybody should know better than to depend on the Rupert Murdoch-owned WSJ as their source. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.