On 1/22/2010 10:18 PM, Wildbilly wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 1/22/2010 4:14 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Frank wrote:
On 1/21/2010 11:04 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
aluckyguess wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TOFe85cmAE

I am not a voter for your congress but I would hope that my elected
representatives were more perceptive and informed than the speaker in
this clip. Being unable to distinguish between climate and weather
does not fill me with confidence that the speaker understands
anything about climate change.

David

That's the knee jerk argument.

I don 't understand that comment. What is knee-jerk about saying a
person who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate
is ignorant? What is knee-jerk about wanting my representatives to be
perceptive and informed?

My skepticism comes in as to how much
weather change is man made vs just what mother nature does.

Weather does change all the time. We need to consider if the earth's
climate is changing and if so why. These are two different issues.

We hear
other planets in our solar system are also warming and I don't think
anybody there are driving SUV's.

Where did you hear that? Assuming for moment that the climate was
changing on other planets from natural causes why would that show that
climate is not changing on earth from human causes?

We know that the earth's climate has changed in the past naturally and
it may well do so again. That by itself says nothing about whether it
*is* doing so naturally this time. This question has been much studied
and there is considerable evidence available that points to the cause
this time being human activity.

David

Weather vs climate is what I call knee jerk reaction as that is always
the reason given. I understand it.

Do some research on the other planets warming. See what you find on the
internet.

Heartland Institute, which is anti, has a very intriguing study on US
earth bound temperature measurement stations where about 90% are out of
specs, e.g. originally out in a field, away from buildings and now
surrounded by them. Also see what they say about the carbon dioxide
correlation.

Satellite data has been showing cooling. Look it up.

Funny you should mention that, Frank. Read the paper today?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0121170717.htm


If you want to see the mindset that drives the global warming crowd,
read Michael Crichton's novel, "State of Fear". There are those that
profit from the "crisis."

If I were a straw man, I would be terrified of you, Frank, but not to
worry. Donald Trump and his shock economists are ready to do for Haiti,
what they did to New Orleans. I'm sure that the gentrification of Port
au Prince will make him a richer man, Frank.

If your going to make an assertion Frank, give us a cite. Don't waste
our time on a snipe hunt. "According to a September 20 NASA news
release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon
dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size
. . ." Three data points, Frank? Three? A real "tea-bagger" should only
need one.

If you want to have some fun, read
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1130192921.htm
or
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/w49...olden.1993.pdf

Go get real facts, Frank, like http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/ ,
or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1130192921.htm .

OK, Frank, let's say that the majority of scientists are wrong. We spend
all this money for nothing, and we look dumb. The other alternative is
that they are right, we do nothing, and then we are screwed. Which way
would you have it, Frank, looking silly, or screwed?

Personally, I just wish that one of our Congresspeople would have the
guts to stand up and admit that Congress works for the corporations, not
the citizens. Corporations are the ones that are fighting regulations on
greenhouse gases. Wake up, Frank.

You are dead wrong about corporations. They always go where the money
is. When the money is with government, they go for it. I can cite
examples with DuPont and GE.