Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements.
Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We
still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is
the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.

The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it ... A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then
proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that
the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that
approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite
independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about
it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the
Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is
the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused
or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of
causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors
the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the
Soviets we should try it again now.

When has global warming happened in the past?

I already mentioned the Medival warming via the Greenland colony. I
will also mention the "Little Ice Age" of the 1300s that killed the
Greenland colony and the 1st century AD examples of Caesar Marcus
Antonius Aurelius marching his legionary vexellations across the Danube
without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have
two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century
of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record
that does predate the invention of the thermometer.

The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

For the last million years the planet has alternated between warm
periods and ice ages. The causes have been more than volcanoes. There
is variation in the orbital elipse (greater eccetricity gives harsher
winters). There is precession of the equinoxes relative to the
orbital elipse (axis aligned with the eccentricity gives wider range of
seasons). There are cycles of variation in total solar output that have
more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse
gases from human activity.

Remember that under 50 years ago projections of the ice age estimates
suggested that the next ice age could start in this century. That the
science has changed so in my lifetime tells me it's current projections
remain tentative not certain. To someone 20 the projections have not
changed in their lifetime. I've also read of very many scientific
revolutions across history and the current science remains tentative to
me.

In the atomic theory of chemistry we now have photographs of atoms. In
the genetic/evolutionary theory of biology we now have genetic
engineering. In climatology we have a growing database and a concensus
among scientists that is new in the last several decades. That's a big
difference in uncertainty. We should act like it. Including the parts
that are definitely certain like the CO2 release into the atmosphere
being huge compared to other eras. Including the fact that the
soviet socialist approach has already been shown a failure.

Current concensus of scientists is the best data we have but it is a
concensus. It doesn't have its equivalent of photographs of individual
atoms or Xray crystalography showing the spiral structure of DNA.

A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not
the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative
approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is
not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to
be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need
not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to
get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.

Doug Freyburger wrote:

There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements.
Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We
still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is
the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.

If it is a "week" assertion, then you also cannot state that this is
century is not the warmest. This century could be the warmest in a million
years. I doubt cattle grazing has been going on for more that a millennia
or a good measure of past temperature recordings.

That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then
proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that
the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that
approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite
independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about
it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the
Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is
the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused
or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of
causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors
the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the
Soviets we should try it again now.

I also object that Ultra Right Wing Capitalist claiming the global warming
is not man made. That political view is a two way street. Let face it, your
belief is on a God, not science.

If your wrong and the human race continues on it's reckless path the earth
will be very uncomfortable place to live for short term gains. If global
warming is not man made what harm is implementing a policy of reducing CO2
and the human population. I think there should be a balance between humans
and nature vs destroying nature at a breakneck pace to support a growing
population that will consume more and more resources.

without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have
two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century
of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record
that does predate the invention of the thermometer.

I disagree with your presuppositions that global cooling is preceded by a
global warming. Their are cooling temperatures in the past followed by
normal temperatures. NOT above normal temperatures like today's time.

more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse
gases from human activity.

Yes! "And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity".
Thank for confirming that global warming ( Greenhouse Gasses ) from human
activities.

A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not
the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative
approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is
not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to
be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need
not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to
get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power? If so you have have really
really gone off the deep end of the Glen Beck World of grand delusions.

Yea I half read "Collapse", some of which has interesting theories. But I
do not buy it completely. This video may be of some interest here.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ja..._collapse.html

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

Take a look at your last posting. Forty three words in one super long
disjointed sentence. Your postings are difficult to read and rather
cryptic. I wonder how you ever graduated from any school writing the way
you do.

I will not respond to your rantings until you learn to write.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Take a look at your last posting.

I will use smaller sentences.

Sequence one.

1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates.

2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates.

3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points.

4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about?

Sequence two.

1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons.

2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic.

3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists.

4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists.

5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign.

Sequence three.

1) Global warming is real.

2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus.

3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong.

4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial?

Sequence four.

1) Fossil fuel is limited.

2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear.

3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price.

4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve.

5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today.

6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum.

7) Hydroelectric damages cute fishees.

8) Nuclear is politically unpopular.

9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their
goals.

10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is
limited.

Conclusion.

It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about
what my stance is.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Take a look at your last posting.

I will use smaller sentences.
This fit of pique is unworthy of you.

Sequence one.

1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates.

2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates.

3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points.

4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about?
You know that the above are easily picked apart.

Sequence two.

1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons.

2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic.

3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists.
Citation please.

4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists.
Qualified sentence. Doesn't show relationship.

5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign.
I agree, but not in environmentalism. Follow the money.

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine...ism/dp/0312427
999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300208360&sr=1-1

Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of
Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans...lism/dp/B001P3
OMQY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301174163&sr=1-1

"A well-researched and readable case against free-trade orthodoxy."
--Business Week

"A lively addition to the protectionist side of the debate...well written
and far more serious than most anti-globalization gibberish."
-- New York Sun

"Bookstore shelves are loaded with offerings by economists and
commentators seeking to explain, in accessible prose, why
free-trade-style globalization is desirable and even indispensable for
countries the world over. Now comes the best riposte from the critics
that I have seen. Readers who are leery of open-market orthodoxy will
rejoice at the cogency of Bad Samaritans. Ha-Joon Chang has the
credentials -- he's on the economics faculty at Cambridge University --
and the storytelling skill to make a well-informed, engaging case
against the dogma propagated by globalization's cheerleaders. Believers
in free trade will find that the book forces them to recalibrate and
maybe even backpedal a bit....Chang's book deserves a wide readership for
illuminating the need for humility about the virtues of private markets
and free trade, especially in the developing world."
--Paul Blustein, Washington Post

"Lucid, deeply informed, and enlivened with striking illustrations,
this penetrating study could be entitled "economics in the real world."
Chang reveals the yawning gap between standard doctrines concerning
economic development and what really has taken place from the origins of
the industrial revolution until today. His incisive analysis shows how,
and why, prescriptions based on reigning doctrines have caused severe
harm, particularly to the most vulnerable and defenseless, and are
likely to continue to do so. He goes on to provide sensible and
constructive proposals, solidly based on economic theory and historical
evidence, as to how the global economy could be redesigned to proceed on
a far more humane and civilized course. And his warnings of what might
happen if corrective action is not taken are grim and apt."
- Noam Chomsky

"A smart, lively, and provocative book that offers us compelling new
ways of looking at globalization."
--Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics

(Available at better libraries near you.)

Sequence three.

1) Global warming is real.

2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus.
What do you call recent? What do you call concensus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong.
Across history, recent concensus in science has often offended dogma.

4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial?
The truth, or its best estimate, is always important.


Sequence four.

1) Fossil fuel is limited.

2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and

nuclear. Make an argument. What we've had so (nuclear ) far isn't
"Green".

3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price.

4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve.
Ask the Japanese about how expensive nuclear is.

5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today.
Planting a garden is good. It just won't feed you on the day that you
plant it.

6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum.
Happily, tidal action can be harnessed without harm to fishees.

7) Hydroelectric damages cute
edible
fishees.

8) Nuclear is politically unpopular.
You mean that those who may be affected by it, don't want it.

9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their
goals.
Spell it out, would you, please.

10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is
limited.
Developing green (sustainable) sources is good in any event.

Conclusion.

It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about
what my stance is.

We have a problem, let's just address the problem and not go
psychoanalytical on it.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause
What are you referring to here?
and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea.
Oh, come on, Doug. This is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't address
Climate Change.

And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

You're losing me too, Doug. Instead of attacking, perhaps you could
clarify, and refrain from attacks.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause
What are you referring to here?
and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea.
Oh, come on, Doug. This is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't address
Climate Change.

And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

You're losing me too, Doug. Instead of attacking, perhaps you could
clarify, and refrain from attacks.

Billy, are you changing your opinion about Doug being a good guy?

From his postings, he sounds just like my family members. One has to dig a
little deeper to reveal his true intentions on the environment of the
planet earth.

If Doug had anything to with the construction or inspections of
California's Nuclear Power Plants, I would be moving out of that state

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause
What are you referring to here?
and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea.
Oh, come on, Doug. This is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't address
Climate Change.

And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

You're losing me too, Doug. Instead of attacking, perhaps you could
clarify, and refrain from attacks.

Billy, are you changing your opinion about Doug being a good guy?

Even "good guys" can have bad days. I've too much history with Doug to
write him off easily. He can be a very thoughtful person.


From his postings, he sounds just like my family members. One has to dig a
little deeper to reveal his true intentions on the environment of the
planet earth.

If Doug had anything to with the construction or inspections of
California's Nuclear Power Plants, I would be moving out of that state
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:

Even "good guys" can have bad days. I've too much history with Doug to
write him off easily. He can be a very thoughtful person.

I have some reading on geological history. My major was Mathematics,
Computer Science with a little bit of Electrical Engineering. So I am not
by any means an expert on geology or Biology. I sometimes I take a first
thought route to problem solving and can make mistakes. If my reasoning is
flawed I will change it. By reading Doug's postings, He seems to be on the
Authoritative side where I am on the Anti-Authoritative side. I do not
trust those that speak in terms of absolutes. It is in my nature to be the
skeptic. Doug's last ranting is far from a thoughtful person.
Still this is usenet where all opinions can be expressed, even from my
rantings

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements.
Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We
still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is
the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.

If it is a "week" assertion, then you also cannot state that this is
century is not the warmest. This century could be the warmest in a million
years. I doubt cattle grazing has been going on for more that a millennia
or a good measure of past temperature recordings.

That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then
proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that
the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that
approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite
independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about
it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the
Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is
the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused
or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of
causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors
the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the
Soviets we should try it again now.

I also object that Ultra Right Wing Capitalist claiming the global warming
is not man made. That political view is a two way street. Let face it, your
belief is on a God, not science.

If your wrong and the human race continues on it's reckless path the earth
will be very uncomfortable place to live for short term gains. If global
warming is not man made what harm is implementing a policy of reducing CO2
and the human population. I think there should be a balance between humans
and nature vs destroying nature at a breakneck pace to support a growing
population that will consume more and more resources.

without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have
two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century
of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record
that does predate the invention of the thermometer.

I disagree with your presuppositions that global cooling is preceded by a
global warming. Their are cooling temperatures in the past followed by
normal temperatures. NOT above normal temperatures like today's time.

more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse
gases from human activity.

Yes! "And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity".
Thank for confirming that global warming ( Greenhouse Gasses ) from human
activities.

A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not
the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative
approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is
not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to
be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need
not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to
get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power? If so you have have really
really gone off the deep end of the Glen Beck World of grand delusions.

Yea I half read "Collapse", some of which has interesting theories. But I
do not buy it completely. This video may be of some interest here.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ja..._collapse.html

Societies failed because dogma outweighed objective assessment.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements.
Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We
still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is
the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.

The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it ... A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then
proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that
the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that
approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite
independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about
it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the
Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is
the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused
or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of
causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors
the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the
Soviets we should try it again now.

When has global warming happened in the past?

I already mentioned the Medival warming via the Greenland colony. I
will also mention the "Little Ice Age" of the 1300s that killed the
Greenland colony and the 1st century AD examples of Caesar Marcus
Antonius Aurelius marching his legionary vexellations across the Danube
without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have
two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century
of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record
that does predate the invention of the thermometer.

The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

For the last million years the planet has alternated between warm
periods and ice ages. The causes have been more than volcanoes. There
is variation in the orbital elipse (greater eccetricity gives harsher
winters). There is precession of the equinoxes relative to the
orbital elipse (axis aligned with the eccentricity gives wider range of
seasons). There are cycles of variation in total solar output that have
more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse
gases from human activity.

Remember that under 50 years ago projections of the ice age estimates
suggested that the next ice age could start in this century. That the
science has changed so in my lifetime tells me it's current projections
remain tentative not certain.

Food for Climate Skeptics

"The frigid winter now ending may be, unhappily, no fluke. The warming
trend that had dominated world climate during most of the years since
1880 appears to have come to an end. Murray Mitehell, Jr., of the U.S.
Weather Bureau reported that mean annual temperatures have dropped in
both Northern and Southern hemispheres by 0.2 degree Fahrenheit since
the early 1940s. In many areas climatic conditions have already returned
to those that prevailed in the 1920s. The downturn has allayed fears
about the 'greenhouse effect,' in which a rising concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, due to increased use of fossil fuels, was
supposed to be trapping more and more solar energy. But the reasons for
the cooling are unknown."
--
Daytime temperatures had fallen during the 1940s and 1950s as aerosol
haze created by industrial pollution reflected sunlight.

Scientific American, March, 1961
(reprinted in the March, 2011 edition)

To someone 20 the projections have not
changed in their lifetime. I've also read of very many scientific
revolutions across history and the current science remains tentative to
me.

In the atomic theory of chemistry we now have photographs of atoms. In
the genetic/evolutionary theory of biology we now have genetic
engineering. In climatology we have a growing database and a concensus
among scientists that is new in the last several decades. That's a big
difference in uncertainty. We should act like it. Including the parts
that are definitely certain like the CO2 release into the atmosphere
being huge compared to other eras. Including the fact that the
soviet socialist approach has already been shown a failure.

Current concensus of scientists is the best data we have but it is a
concensus. It doesn't have its equivalent of photographs of individual
atoms or Xray crystalography showing the spiral structure of DNA.

A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not
the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative
approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is
not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to
be doing something, anything.

The Soviet Union was never a Socialist, much less a Communist country
any more than the colonialists who threw tea into Boston Harbor were
Indians. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship under Uncle Joe, and an
oligarchy afterwards. Any social benefits were incidental.

An understanding that climate change need
not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to
get power is not denial.

To what end is this power of which you speak? My view is that it is the
power to keep corporate sponsors to fund election campaigns, which is
contingent on legislation which increases corporate revenues. 87% of
corporate stock is owned by 1% of the population. By and large, it is
the extractors of fossil fuels (which are responsible for the release of
CO2 into the atmosphere) which are the most vocal deniers of Global
Warming.
----

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore

MICHAEL MOO America is not broke. Contrary to what those in power
would like you to believe, so that you'll give up your pension, cut your
wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is
not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.

Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans - 400 - have more wealth
than half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again. And please,
someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once. We're not
greedy; we'll be happy to hear it just once. Four hundred obscenely
wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks, most of whom benefited in some
way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008, now have
more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans
combined.
------

Politicians (the RNC & the DNC) are just sock-puppets of the super-rich.
Democracy in America is an illusion.
----

Geologically, there isn't a fixed, standard temp for the planet. Among
those who deny Global Warming, are those who will benefit from the
continued release of CO2. Politicians who oppose taking action against
Global Warming benefit from campaign financing provided by corporate
deniers. Corporations deny Global warming, because it reduces the income
of its investors. Democracy doesn't exist, because if it did, it would
interfere with the (mythical) free-market.

There is some small disagreement about whether "Global Warming" is
actually occurring. There is no disagreement on the rise of CO2 levels.

Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL MASS EXTINCTION'S.

Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.
---

Meanwhile back at the ranch,

Unemployment is capitalism's way of getting you to plant a garden.
- Orson Scott Card

After 2 days of heavy rain, the peas are lookin' good :O)

If you like weekends, thank a union.

==
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Unemployment is capitalism's way of getting you to plant a garden.
- Orson Scott Card

My new signature thank you.

Bill who has about 20 F. low for four more nights before a break. 40
F. high right now. Started some caladiums this morning.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Unemployment is capitalism's way of getting you to plant a garden.
- Orson Scott Card

My new signature thank you.

Bill who has about 20 F. low for four more nights before a break. 40
F. high right now. Started some caladiums this morning.

Aren't you supposed to mark the topic OT when you talk about gardening?
;O))

How far are you from North Carolina where the Cook is in full gardening
mode? Seems very strange.

My tomatoes have stuck their little dicots out. The second round of peas
are starting to show themselves and the Romanesco broccoli is stretching
for the grow lights.

If you like weekends, thank a union.

===
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article
,

Bill who has about 20 F. low for four more nights before a break. 40
F. high right now. Started some caladiums this morning.

Aren't you supposed to mark the topic OT when you talk about gardening?
;O))

How far are you from North Carolina where the Cook is in full gardening
mode? Seems very strange.

Last night here it was 20 F. and in Raleigh it was 41 F. for a low. We
are in winter.
Distance I'd guess about 600 miles.

My tomatoes have stuck their little dicots out. The second round of peas
are starting to show themselves and the Romanesco broccoli is stretching
for the grow lights.

I plan to plant late as a general rule as I have light issues aka tree
work in the next two months. Trying to enhance the microclimate.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Unemployment is capitalism's way of getting you to plant a garden.
- Orson Scott Card