In article <oonoqv0fai5j5m1f2eh1jsmlc0ccdb0jkk@4ax.com>, Matt Osborn wrote:

> What all the computer models in the world miss is the effects of cloud
> cover. It isn't certain if the heat retained because of clouds
> offsets the heat reflected because of clouds.

Computer models have been misused in this topic. The basic problem
with them is that they are pre-programed with the assumption that
the corrolation seen in some data is causation. Right then and there
what ever the computer model spits out is but a *PREDICTION*.

There are two ways to test these predictions. One, see if they
can predict the future. Run them, then wait and see if the future
matches. Two, run them given the data to some past date. See if they
predict what occured after that date.

To the best of my knowledge, the computer climate models continue
to fail these real world tests. Therefore, they are not something
to base policy on.

Trouble is, too many people think that just because it came out of a
computer that makes it accurate and correct.

"Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?"
Yup, Clinton started the "Clinton Recession" W pulled us out of it AFTER
9/11...

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogb7d$44t$26@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
> >
> >> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out
of
> >the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
> >where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
> >increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com
speculation,
> >which was
> >wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <
> >
> >Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation
of
> >the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed
aside
> >the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
> >happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
> >collapsed the economy in on itself.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?

The "public sector" jobs generate some taxes that go to the feds. The taxes
from the jobs in the "private sector" is money that comes from the feds
right back to the feds.


"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:49:05 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>This is simply not true. In fact it is wrong my many orders of magnitude.
>According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, natural emission
>are at least 700 billion tons. Emissions related to human activity are only about
>24 billion tons.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White

You should know better than to respond to lloyd the moron.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:11:10 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
>> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>
>Can you site a source that agrees with this. There is lot of conflicting
>information available, but none of it shows the concentration as being stable. The

First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.

Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive
instruments, and we will simply make up data for before we had any
instruments...

> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.

Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <

You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
lemming.....

"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SOiqb.11748$9M3.11131@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Hello??? LLLLLOYD are you published in your field of expertise?? I am,
are
> you?????

Is MAD Magazine still in publication? He might still have a chance. ;-)

You list precisely the limited government I support, which must establish a
secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads, security,
safety, rule of law, etc.

If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
across the board.

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > used.
>
> Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
sailors and
> airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
inspectors
> checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime aren't
> providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>
> Ed
>

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:36:39 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:

>> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
>
>Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
>and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
>
>You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
>logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
>lemming.....

Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
stand for.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:26:34 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <oonoqv0fai5j5m1f2eh1jsmlc0ccdb0jkk@4ax.com>, Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>> What all the computer models in the world miss is the effects of cloud
>> cover. It isn't certain if the heat retained because of clouds
>> offsets the heat reflected because of clouds.
>
>Computer models have been misused in this topic. The basic problem
>with them is that they are pre-programed with the assumption that
>the corrolation seen in some data is causation. Right then and there
>what ever the computer model spits out is but a *PREDICTION*.
>
>There are two ways to test these predictions. One, see if they
>can predict the future. Run them, then wait and see if the future
>matches. Two, run them given the data to some past date. See if they
>predict what occured after that date.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, the computer climate models continue
>to fail these real world tests. Therefore, they are not something
>to base policy on.

Hey, what is your problem? You know for a fact that computers predict
the weather with 100% accuracy every single day in every single point
on the globe. How dare you doubt that computers can predict something
with a million more variables over a period of time far larger!

What kind of brain using person are you?

Oh wait, you are right.

"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n1dqqvg433vfgut94gh18f64f87m8tus62@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:36:39 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
> <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
> >
> >Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive
instruments,
> >and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
> >
> >You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
> >logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little
green
> >lemming.....
>
> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
> stand for.

You guys need to learn some "science".
Oh wait, thats Lloyds line.
Sorry.;-)

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not
>being married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a
>spouse, tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think
>employers would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to
>pay SS.>
>
>No, they'd probably invest it in research, or HEAVENS, pay it out to the
>shareholders, you know, all those filthy rich scubags making $40k a year.

When weighted for shares owned, what is the average income of shareholders?

That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether they own and
stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every share of stock
held and average the incomes of its owner.

I suspect the number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect
that most shares in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000
per year (or by companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per
year.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>...
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> > It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
> You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
> never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
> concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
> permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
> coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
> stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance.

I would have thought that any "balance" would have been established
before we came along. Note your next comment. "Balance", I agree, is
not a term that should be used in this discussion.

> At any rate the
> era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
> years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
> a blip.

That's not a helpful observation. On a geologic time scale, human
existance is a just a blip. I don't think the next 4 or 5 generations
will think it so small a deal, however.
>
> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
> in the climate.

Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.

> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
> change in the CO2 concentration.

Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
dramatically.

> The component of climate change attributable to
> human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
> (whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
> compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
> bad thing, or an insignificant thing.

A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
Nor a "good thing".

> I object to what I perceive to be a
> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.

What goals could they be?

> I think the potential for harm
> is deliberately overstated.

The only studies I've read that don't support the findings of the UN
research into climate change have been published by people funded by
vested interests.

> I think the science supporting global warming is not
> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
> theory" with liberals.

I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
companies argue that it's quite significant.

> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
> generates a lot interest.

As it should.

> I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
> because they can get money to study it.

As opposed to funding on drug research? As opposed to ozone research?
Please.
>
> If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
> feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
> night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
> in Kansas now.

This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.

> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> rearranged for no reason.

If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
inland.
And it seems they are right: In the 130 years that temperatures have
been recorded, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990, were six of the
seven warmest years recorded. The trend was interrupted by the
eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 which cooled temperatures around
the world for several years due to the amount of dust emitted into the
atmosphere. In l995 the warming trend was reestablished, with 1995
being the warmest year yet, coming in at 59.7F.

You'll probably right that off as a "blip", too.

> If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
> lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
> any affect on the end results.

I don't understand what you mean by "rearranging" the lives of
millions of Americans? Surely encouraging efficiency can only be a
good thing?

> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
> To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
> the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
> dramatically overstated.

And I think you have dramatically understated the possible problems.
The costs of climate change are already being seen, I believe, and
will continue to grow. You talk about a couple of million people
relocating like it's a small thing. How much to relocate NYC, I
wonder? Relocation is going to be a long way away, though, as you've
said. Besides, some places could be protected by sea walls etc.
However, rising sea levels are only one effect of faster climate
change. A more dramatic change is the increasing number of natural
disasters: Storms, fires, droughts, etc. Here in Australia, we've
been suffering the longest doughts on record - in some areas, over 6
years long.
So you may move everyone to Kansas, but what are they going to eat?
According to the Reinsurance Association of America, nearly 50% of the
insured losses from natural catastrophes during the past forty years
have been incurred since 1990.

Other issues include: Increased rates of insect born diseases, faster
rates of species extinction, increased warfare over dwindling food and
water supplies in some regions, etc. etc.

You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
thing, you know. Nor is change.

Cheers,
Steve

In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com>, st3ph3nm wrote:

>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.

> What goals could they be?

Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

> The only studies I've read that don't support the findings of the UN
> research into climate change have been published by people funded by
> vested interests.

I've several that aren't. I've mentioned a couple recent ones in this
thread or the one it spawned from. (see earlier posts)

>> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>> generates a lot interest.

> As it should.

But it doesn't spend much time at all how the "solutions" aren't going
to a damn bit of good. Only how nasty republicans and right wingers
stand in the way.

>> I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>> because they can get money to study it.

> As opposed to funding on drug research? As opposed to ozone research?
> Please.

I've learned a bit about how funding happens, he's correct. There's
money in researching global warming as being caused by human activities.

>> If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>> feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>> night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>> in Kansas now.

> This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.

Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
nations?

>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>> rearranged for no reason.

> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
> inland.

And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
it *isn't* going to happen.

>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?

The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
CO2 output per product.

Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
atmosphere. Some solution.

> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.

And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
things worse if the theory is correct.

> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
> thing, you know. Nor is change.

I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
are using this topic as their tool to do so.

> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
for.<

That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
know far better than you how it should be spent...

> You guys need to learn some "science". Oh wait, thats Lloyds line.
Sorry.;-) <

As they say in New Jersey "Hey, I got ya science, right heah!".
>
>

> When weighted for shares owned, what is the average income of
shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <

What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!

Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
savings. I KNOW it's TERRIBLE for you Socialists to think that people making
moderate incomes would actually SAVE and INVEST....what is this Country
coming to, I ask you? Obviously this money they save would be far better
left to liberal politicians to spend on bigger government. Time to raise
taxes on all those rich people making 40k a year!

Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FAB8527.5FDF3CE2@kinez.net>...
> > Well he just offended 95% of the "average guy" in the last couple of
> > days with his spastic tap dancing. Al Sharpton still hasn't decided if
>
> Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
> "Sharpton" of your own.

No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
says seriously. Sharpton of my own? What the heck does that mean?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > I always am skeptical of people who pretentiously refer to the Earth as
> > if it were a person saying "Earth" instead of "the Earth" as any normal
> > person (at least in the U.S.) would do
>
> Have you looked through a telescope lately and seen the Mars, the Saturn,
> the Venus, the Jupiter, the Neptune, the Pluto...?
>
> Looks like you're talking out of (the) Uranus.
>
> DS

I thought about that before I posted. (BTW, you left out [the] Sun,
[the] Moon.)

The fact is, normal people (in the U.S. anyway), while they refer to the
other planets as [name of planet] *without* the "the" refer to the earth
as "the Earth". You want to argue with that, go right ahead. I'm not
saying it's logical that we use "the" when referring to the Earth but
not with the other planets - but it happens to be a fact of common
usage.

Ask a normal kid or adult who knows the answer to the question "How far
are we away from the sun?" and he/she will answer "The Earth is 93
million miles from the sun". It would sound weird and affectatious for
them to say "Earth is 93 million miles from the sun".

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Daniel J Stern wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > > I always am skeptical of people who pretentiously refer to the Earth as
> > > if it were a person saying "Earth" instead of "the Earth" as any normal
> > > person (at least in the U.S.) would do
> >
> > Have you looked through a telescope lately and seen the Mars, the Saturn,
> > the Venus, the Jupiter, the Neptune, the Pluto...?
> >
> > Looks like you're talking out of (the) Uranus.
>
> I thought about that before I posted. (BTW, you left out [the] Sun,
> [the] Moon.)
>
> The fact is, normal people (in the U.S. anyway), while they refer to the
> other planets as [name of planet] *without* the "the" refer to the earth
> as "the Earth". You want to argue with that, go right ahead. I'm not
> saying it's logical that we use "the" when referring to the Earth but
> not with the other planets - but it happens to be a fact of common
> usage.
>
> Ask a normal kid or adult who knows the answer to the question "How far
> are we away from the sun?" and he/she will answer "The Earth is 93
> million miles from the sun". It would sound weird and affectatious for
> them to say "Earth is 93 million miles from the sun".

Oops - hit send too soon.

With very few exceptions (such as the common expression "What on earth
are you doing"), the only time you see or hear "earth" without the "the"
is in national media. You almost never hear it in local media (unless
someone is clearly aligning themselves with liberal politics and are
attempting to separate themselves out from the local unwashed masses),
maybe 1/2 the time in national media (probably due to the other half not
having been "properly" trained yet, or feeling it too awkward to pull
off using it and making it sound natural - because it never does for an
"American English" speaking person), except on NPR, where it's used
without the "the" probably about 95% of the time undoubtedly due to
special training or self-re-training to fit in with the "correct"
politics of NPR (and maybe partly due to a seemingly abnormally high
proportion of regular personalities with "non-American" accents, meaning
British, Australian, or whatever, in which it is normal to say "earth"
without the "the". Like I said earlier about it sounding weird and
affected when a native American (generically speaking) says someone is
"in hospital" rather than the nautural (for the U.S.) "in the hospital".

Ask any person on the street, ask your relatives (when they are in
casual conversation) a question in which they have to use the word
"Earth", and I bet you 99 times out of a hundred, they'll say "the
earth", not "earth" sans "the".

BTW - I liked your "Uranus" joke - one of my favorites too, and it
naturally fit right in with the discussion (which all jokes should to be
the funniest). My kids hate it when I use it - which makes it even more
fun. 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----