HomeRoast Digest


Topic: OT: Earth's temps... (83 msgs / 3396 lines)
1) From: Justin Marquez
The average ocean temperature actually was reported as declined  a bitlast
year.  Must've been the cooling effect of all those melting polar ice caps.
No, wait... the Antartica polar ice cap is reported nearing a historical
peak in size.  Could it be.... Al is playing POLITICS instead of SCIENCE...
again??
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On Dec 27, 2007 3:02 PM, Ross  wrote:
<Snip>
--

2) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-2--687775035
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>
You wouldn't happen to have sources for this, would you?
Scot "because it sounds like BS to me" Murphy
"One of the curious things about censorship is that no one seems to  
want it for himself."
	--Edgar Dale
--Apple-Mail-2--687775035
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 27, 2007, =
at 9:38 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
The average ocean temperature = actually was reported as declined  a bitlast year.  Must've = been the cooling effect of all those melting polar ice caps.  No, = wait... the Antartica polar ice cap is reported nearing a historical = peak in size.  Could it be.... Al is playing POLITICS instead of = SCIENCE... again?? You wouldn't = happen to have sources for this, would you?

Scot "because it sounds = like BS to me" Murphy

"One of the = curious things about censorship is that no one seems to want it for = himself." --Edgar Dale = = --Apple-Mail-2--687775035--

3) From: gin
<Snip>
you got it!!
ginny
happy new year...
---- Justin Marquez  wrote: 
<Snip>

4) From: Brett Mason
Source: David Deming,
  a geophysicist,
  an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and
  associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
Notes:
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007.
  Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26
years.
  Australia experienced the coldest June ever; in northeastern Australia,
the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold
weather since 1941.
  In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
In the United States:
  In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach
crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest.
  At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on
April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in
1923.
  On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit; Denver's
temperature records extend back to 1872.
  On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Further:
  On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees
Celsius.
  The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest
in 15 years.
Source: David Deming, "Year of global cooling," Washington Times, December
19, 2007.
For text:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140/1012- - - - - - -
Well, there is some verifiable data.  Best taken with some good coffee!
Anybody have some coffee around here?
Thanks for the question Scot; thanks for the note Justin; thanks for
pursuing global something Al...
Brett
On 12/27/07, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
year.  Must've been the cooling effect of all those melting polar ice caps.
No, wait... the Antartica polar ice cap is reported nearing a historical
peak in size.  Could it be.... Al is playing POLITICS instead of SCIENCE...
again??
<Snip>
it for himself."
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

5) From: Brett Mason
It would be unfair to lay this whole global cooling thing on David
Deming alone...  I have copied a little of the content here, you can
search and find much more if you like, or write me offlist.  Still, my
coffee loving friends deserve good facts....
 A letter of dissent was sent to the UN Climate gathering in Bali, and
included these comments:
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are
ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources
that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems,"
the letter signed by the scientists read.  The December 13 letter was
released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)
 "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that
has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological,
oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed
to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature,
precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists
wrote.
The letter was signed by a hundred scientists, including renowned
scientists such as
  Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists;
  Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer
  Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute;
  Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International
Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most
Cited Scientists";
  Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen;
  UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand;
  French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin;
  World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University;
  Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University;
  Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific
Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland;
  Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia;
  Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad,
head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and
  Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
On 12/28/07, Brett Mason  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

6) From: Tom Ulmer
It's 80°F here.
Does anyone know why it's so important to woo primary voters in Iowa? =
Isn't
there like 12 people who live there with 1 that's not white, Christian, =
and
middle class?

7) From: Brett Mason
Hey there Tom, I am from Iowa, and white, Christian and middle class.
But that's not all that is in Iowa...
Iowa and New Hampshire are microcosms of small town America, and offer
an early glimpse of what may well appeal to many.  So the Iowa
Caucuses and New Hampshire Primaries are often considered a first
testing ground for who will be appealing as a candidate in the
Conventions and ultimately the Presidential Election...
From California, I never cared.  But I did wonder why only "certain
states" mattered.  California has recently changed its "winner take
all" assignment of delegates, so suddenly the races are opening up.
Could be exciting.
Iowa's caucus approach was originally developed to allow the
non-literate to make their stand for who they would like to see
elected - maybe that is why Iowa goes first, and maybe why these two
small states are important...
AND Christmas Blend is brewing right now - can't wait!
Brett
On 12/28/07, Tom Ulmer  wrote:
<Snip>
't
<Snip>
nd
<Snip>
ribes) go tohttp://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

8) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-6--635633472
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Okay, so you have a hundred dissenters. The IPCC has hundreds of  
scientists working together. Just because dissent exists does not mean  
its minority opinion is some sort of secret knowledge ignored by a  
domineering cabal.http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htmMANDATE
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others  
interested in climate change with an objective source of information  
about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does  
it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess  
on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest  
scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide  
relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate  
change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation  
and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy,  
although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant  
scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of  
high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of  
views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.
WHO WE ARE
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World  
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations  
Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and  
UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where  
main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are  
accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of  
IPCC Reports.
The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute  
to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the  
promotion of the United Nations human development goals
WHY THE IPCC WAS CREATED
Climate change is a very complex issue: policymakers need an objective  
source of information about the causes of climate change, its  
potential environmental and socio-economic consequences and the  
adaptation and mitigation options to respond to it. This is why WMO  
and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  
(IPCC) in 1988.
The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its  
reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing  
viewpoints within the scientific community. The comprehensiveness of  
the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts  
in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines including,  
where appropriately documented, industry literature and traditional  
practices, and a two stage review process by experts and governments.
Because of its intergovernmental nature, the IPCC is able to provide  
scientific technical and socio-economic information in a policy- 
relevant but policy neutral way to decision makers. When governments  
accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers,  
they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.
The IPCC provides its reports at regular intervals and they  
immediately become standard works of reference, widely used by  
policymakers, experts and students. The findings of the first IPCC  
Assessment Report of 1990 played a decisive role in leading to the  
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which  
was opened for signature in the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 and  
entered into force in 1994. It provides the overall policy framework  
for addressing the climate change issue. The IPCC Second Assessment  
Report of 1995 provided key input for the negotiations of the Kyoto  
Protocol in 1997 and the Third Assessment Report of 2001 as well as  
Special and Methodology Reports provided further information relevant  
for the development of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC  
continues to be a major source of information for the negotiations  
under the UNFCCC.http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm(graphics on this page that would overwhelm an e-mail)
On Dec 28, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Brett Mason wrote:
<Snip>
--
"I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions."
	--Lillian Hellman
--Apple-Mail-6--635633472
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Okay, so you have a =
hundred dissenters. The IPCC has hundreds of scientists working =
together. Just because dissent exists does not mean its minority opinion =
is some sort of secret knowledge ignored by a domineering =
cabal.
=">http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index=.htm
= MANDATE The IPCC was = established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in = climate change with an objective source of information about climate = change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor = climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a = comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest = scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide = relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate = change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation = and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, = although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, = technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific = and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise = and wide geographical coverage. WHO WE = ARE The IPCC is a scientific = intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization = (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its = constituency is made of :The governments: the IPCC is open to = all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in = plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC = workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. = They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.The = scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the = work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.The = people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of = the United Nations human development = goals WHY THE IPCC WAS = CREATED Climate change is a very complex = issue: policymakers need an objective source of information about the = causes of climate change, its potential environmental and socio-economic = consequences and the adaptation and mitigation options to respond to it. = This is why WMO and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on = Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC is a = scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based = on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the = scientific community. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is = achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world = and all relevant disciplines including, where appropriately documented, = industry literature and traditional practices, and a two stage review = process by experts and governments. Because = of its intergovernmental nature, the IPCC is able to provide scientific = technical and socio-economic information in a policy-relevant but policy = neutral way to decision makers. When governments accept the IPCC reports = and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the = legitimacy of their scientific content. The = IPCC provides its reports at regular intervals and they immediately = become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, experts = and students. The findings of the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 = played a decisive role in leading to the United Nations Framework = Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was opened for signature in = the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 and entered into force in 1994. It = provides the overall policy framework for addressing the climate change = issue. The IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995 provided key input for = the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Third Assessment = Report of 2001 as well as Special and Methodology Reports provided = further information relevant for the development of the UNFCCC and the = Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC continues to be a major source of information = for the negotiations under the UNFCCC.
(graphics on this page =">http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccr=eports/index.htm
(graphics on this page = that would overwhelm an e-mail)
On Dec 28, 2007, = at 9:53 AM, Brett Mason wrote:
It would = be unfair to lay this whole global cooling thing on David Deming = alone...  I have copied a little of the content here, you = can search and find much more if you like, or write me offlist. =  Still, my coffee loving friends deserve good facts.... = A letter of dissent was sent to the UN Climate gathering in Bali, = and included these comments: "Attempts to prevent global = climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a = tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on = humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the = scientists read.  The December 13 letter was released to the = public late Thursday. (LINK) "It is not possible to stop climate = change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the = ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all = attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from = unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other = climatic variables," the scientists wrote. The letter was = signed by a hundred scientists, including renowned scientists such = as  Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of = Scientists;  Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of = Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer  Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, = formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; =  Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the = International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the = "1000 Most Cited Scientists";  Award winning MIT atmospheric = scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen;  UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent = Gray of New Zealand;  French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of = the University Jean Moulin;  World authority on sea level Dr. = Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University;  Physicist Dr. = Freeman Dyson of Princeton University;  Physicist Dr. Zbigniew = Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory = for Radiological Protection in Poland;  Paleoclimatologist Dr. = Robert M. Carter of Australia;  Former UN IPCC reviewer = Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological = Museum in Norway; and  Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. = National Academy of Sciences.

--"I cannot and = will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions." = --Lillian Hellman
= --Apple-Mail-6--635633472--

9) From: Justin Marquez
Google "Antarctica ice cap growing" and there are a number of interesting
documented articles available.
Interesting commentary here:http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/I'll dig into the temperature question later.
I did also hear a recent radio interview with the fellow who originally
founded "The Weather Channel" and who holds advanced degrees in meteorolgy
(why do they call it that? they don't study meteors - they study weather!).
He said that a couple of years back, after he had retired, he decided to dig
back into the studies done on climate change, global warming, etc.  He found
that most of the studies were flawed badly.  He wrote a book about it.
Unfortunately I don't recall his name or that of his book, but I have been
meaning to see if I can find it. (On my defense, I was driving in Houston
traffic at the time so I was a teensy bit occupied!)  Perhaps someone else
here heard it and recalls the names...?
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On Dec 27, 2007 8:50 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
--

10) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-7--634941972
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Brett Mason wrote:
<Snip>
Actually, not so. It was a proposed referendum that never made it onto  
the ballot due to lack of funding.
Scot "Google sees and knows all" Murphy
---
"Tolerance only grows when faith loses certainty; certainty is  
murderous."
	--Will Durant
--Apple-Mail-7--634941972
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 10:33 AM, Brett Mason wrote:
From California, I never = cared.  But I did wonder why only "certain states" mattered. =  California has recently changed its "winner take all" = assignment of delegates, so suddenly the races are opening up. Could = be exciting. Actually, not = so. It was a proposed referendum that never made it onto the ballot due = to lack of funding.
<http://www.lati=mes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-electoral7dec07,1,1291573.story= ?coll=la-headlines-pe-california>

Scot "Google sees and = knows all" Murphy
---"Tolerance = only grows when faith loses certainty; certainty is = murderous." --Will Durant
= --Apple-Mail-7--634941972--

11) From: Justin Marquez
Found the link on the weather channel founder guy, Dr. John Coleman:http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On Dec 27, 2007 8:50 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
--

12) From: zane
"The year 2007 is on pace to become one of the 10 warmest years for the
contiguous U.S., since national records began in 1895, according to
preliminary data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C
"http://www.hprcc.unl.edumaybe there is a bit more snow in antarctica for the time being, but record
melting in the arctic and greenland make me think the NOAA maybe right.

13) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-8--634172944
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Scot Murphy wrote:
<Snip>
By the way, a previous e-mail from me listed quite a few news  
articles, gleaned from Google with the search "2007 warmest," directly  
contradicted David Deming's report in the Moonie Times. I don't think  
there's a reputable scientist anywhere who has claimed that the  
weather would rise uniformly warmly in all places on the globe. The  
assertion is, if I may boil it down, is that the weather would get  
weird before it got warm. That is very certainly the case right now.  
That is why scientists refer to it as "climate change" rather than the  
shorthand of "global warming" (which, I think, even Al Gore  
dropped...but I could be wrong). For instance, Europe is projected to  
become freezing in parts and tropical in others due to the eventual  
cessation of the "caterpillar," the oceanic current that brings warm  
water from the tropics to cooler latitudes and cool water to the  
tropics.  Parts of the earth will flood, others will drought. We're  
already seeing the change in many ways: stronger, longer hurricanes,  
catastrophic glacial melting, unpredictable and sudden changes, and so  
on. This is not a political issue. This isn't something to try to get  
votes. The climate change alarmists are ringing the bell because they  
want to save the planet, not get rid of Republicans.
Ultimately, if nothing is done, future generations--what there are of  
them--will look back and curse us for our blindness and lack of  
courage. We'll deserve those curses.
Scot "it may already be too late" Murphy
---
"The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is  
the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers."
	--Erich Fromm
--Apple-Mail-8--634172944
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 12:19 PM, Scot Murphy wrote:
Okay, so you have a hundred = dissenters. The IPCC has hundreds of scientists working together. Just = because dissent exists does not mean its minority opinion is some sort = of secret knowledge ignored by a domineering = cabal. = By the way, a = previous e-mail from me listed quite a few news articles, gleaned from = Google with the search "2007 warmest," directly contradicted David = Deming's report in the Moonie Times. I don't think there's a reputable = scientist anywhere who has claimed that the weather would rise uniformly = warmly in all places on the globe. The assertion is, if I may boil it = down, is that the weather would get weird before it got warm. That is = very certainly the case right now. That is why scientists refer to it as = "climate change" rather than the shorthand of "global warming" (which, I = think, even Al Gore dropped...but I could be wrong). For instance, = Europe is projected to become freezing in parts and tropical in others = due to the eventual cessation of the "caterpillar," the oceanic current = that brings warm water from the tropics to cooler latitudes and cool = water to the tropics.  Parts of the earth will flood, others will = drought. We're already seeing the change in many ways: stronger, longer = hurricanes, catastrophic glacial melting, unpredictable and sudden = changes, and so on. This is not a political issue. This isn't something = to try to get votes. The climate change alarmists are ringing the bell = because they want to save the planet, not get rid of = Republicans. 
Ultimately, if = nothing is done, future generations--what there are of them--will look = back and curse us for our blindness and lack of courage. We'll deserve = those curses.

Scot "it may = already be too late" Murphy

---"The quest = for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very = condition to impel man to unfold his powers." = --Erich Fromm
= --Apple-Mail-8--634172944--

14) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-9--633848837
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charsetNDOWS-1252;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-glo=bal-warming-snow-job/
<Snip>
Not exactly objective journalism:
"Recent climate changes have led to a fairly large warming trend in  
the region around the Antarctic Peninsula—the spit of land the  
stretches from the Antarctic mainland towards the southern tip of  
South America. In this region, comprising about 2% of the entirety of  =
Antarctica, significant changes associated with rising temperatures  
are being observed—floating ice shelves are breaking up, glaciers are  =
shrinking, seal species are moving in, grasses, tiny shrubs and mosses  =
are thriving, etc. By most accounts, transitioning from a relatively  
barren, frozen landscape to a warmer, less frozen one would seem to be  =
a positive development, as this change presents a growing opportunity  =
for increased species richness and diversity. But, in today’s world,  =
dominated by an eagerness to demonstrate how human activities are  
impacting the innocent “natural” species of the world, all change is =
 
bad."
No, the change is bad because once the ice melts, the sea levels will  =
rise by several feet and coastal cities will be drowned. But thanks  
for playing.
Scot "duh" Murphy
---
"Historically, the most terrible things--war, genocide, and slavery-- 
have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience."
	--Howard Zinn
--Apple-Mail-9--633848837
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetNDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 12:21 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
 Interesting = commentary here: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php=/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/ <= /div>I'll dig into the temperature question = later.

Not exactly objective = journalism:
"Recent climate changes have led to a fairly large = warming trend in the region around the Antarctic Peninsula—the spit of = land the stretches from the Antarctic mainland towards the southern tip = of South America. In this region, comprising about 2% of the entirety of = Antarctica, significant changes associated with rising temperatures are = being observed—floating ice shelves are breaking up, glaciers are = shrinking, seal species are moving in, grasses, tiny shrubs and mosses = are thriving, etc. By most accounts, transitioning from a relatively = barren, frozen landscape to a warmer, less frozen one would seem to be a = positive development, as this change presents a growing opportunity for = increased species richness and diversity. But, in today’s world, = dominated by an eagerness to demonstrate how human activities are = impacting the innocent “natural” species of the world, all change is = bad." No, the change is bad because once the ice = melts, the sea levels will rise by several feet and coastal cities will = be drowned. But thanks for playing.

Scot "duh" = Murphy ---"Historically, = the most terrible things--war, genocide, and slavery--have resulted not = from disobedience, but from obedience." --Howard = Zinn
= = --Apple-Mail-9--633848837--

15) From: Sandra Andina
--Apple-Mail-3--630825634
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charsetO-8859-1;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When I lived in Seattle, WA had caucuses instead of a Presidential  
primary. Because of the caucuses, I became involved in local politics,  =
and that carried over when I moved to Chicago (even though we have  
primaries here). I was a precinct captain in both cities and worked on  =
some major mayoral and aldermanic campaigns. I went to the '76 WA  
caucus because my husband said if I didn't like the candidate who  
eventually got nominated, I'd have had no right to complain if I  
didn't go. The caucuses are lively and like true town meetings. I miss  =
'em.
On Dec 28, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Brett Mason wrote:
<Snip>http://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettingsSandy Andina">http://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings<Snip>http://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettingsSandy Andina
www.myspace.com/sandyandina
--Apple-Mail-3--630825634
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When I lived in Seattle, WA had =
caucuses instead of a Presidential primary. Because of the caucuses, I =
became involved in local politics, and that carried over when I moved to =
Chicago (even though we have primaries here). I was a precinct captain =
in both cities and worked on some major mayoral and aldermanic =
campaigns. I went to the '76 WA caucus because my husband said if I =
didn't like the candidate who eventually got nominated, I'd have had no =
right to complain if I didn't go. The caucuses are lively and like true =
town meetings. I miss 'em.
On Dec 28, 2007, at 9:33 AM, =
Brett Mason wrote:
Hey there = Tom, I am from Iowa, and white, Christian and middle class. But = that's not all that is in Iowa... Iowa and New Hampshire are = microcosms of small town America, and offer an early glimpse of what = may well appeal to many.  So the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire = Primaries are often considered a first testing ground for who will be = appealing as a candidate in the Conventions and ultimately the = Presidential Election... From California, I never cared. =  But I did wonder why only "certain states" mattered. =  California has recently changed its "winner take all" = assignment of delegates, so suddenly the races are opening up. Could = be exciting. Iowa's caucus approach was originally developed to = allow the non-literate to make their stand for who they would like to = see elected - maybe that is why Iowa goes first, and maybe why these = two small states are important... AND Christmas Blend is = brewing right now - can't wait! Brett On 12/28/07, Tom Ulmer = <tom> = wrote: It's 80°F = here. Does anyone = know why it's so important to woo primary voters in Iowa? = Isn't there like 12 people who = live there with 1 that's not white, Christian, = and middle = class? -----Original = Message----- From: homeroast-admin= s.sweetmarias.com [mailto:homeroast-adm= in] On Behalf Of Brett = Mason Sent: Friday, December = 28, 2007 9:53 AM To: homeroast= s.com Subject: Re: +OT: = Earth's temps... homeroast mailing = list http://li=sts.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast To change your personal list settings (digest = options, vacations, unsvbscribes) go to http://=sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings -- = Cheers, Brett http://homeroast.freeservers.com= homeroast = mailing = listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroastTo = change your personal list settings (digest options, vacations, = unsvbscribes) go to =http://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings= Sandy Andinawww.myspace.com/sandyandina = --Apple-Mail-3--630825634--

16) From: Sandra Andina
--Apple-Mail-4--630101279
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Coleman used to be weatherman at both the ABC and NBC stations here in  
Chicago. He is mistakenly referred to on many websites as a  
meteorologist, but in fact never formally studied the subject. (I  
believe his degree from the U of I was in journalism or  
communications). He founded the Weather Channel but was eased out  
(refusing a ceremonial position) when it became more scientifically  
oriented, employing certified meteorologists.  I don't find his  
opinions on the subject any more compelling than those of Michael  
Crichton (whose scientific expertise is in medicine).
OTOH, sometimes he was seen on-air with a coffee mug......(keeping  
this on-topic).
On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>
Sandy Andina
www.myspace.com/sandyandina
--Apple-Mail-4--630101279
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Coleman used to be weatherman =
at both the ABC and NBC stations here in Chicago. He is mistakenly =
referred to on many websites as a meteorologist, but in fact never =
formally studied the subject. (I believe his degree from the U of I was =
in journalism or communications). He founded the Weather Channel but was =
eased out (refusing a ceremonial position) when it became more =
scientifically oriented, employing certified meteorologists.  I =
don't find his opinions on the subject any more compelling than those of =
Michael Crichton (whose scientific expertise is in medicine).OTOH, =
sometimes he was seen on-air with a coffee mug......(keeping this =
on-topic).On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Justin =
Marquez wrote:
Found the link on the weather channel founder guy, = Dr. John Coleman:   http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warmin=g/   Safe Journeys and Sweet = Music Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX) On Dec 27, 2007 8:50 PM, Scot Murphy <deppitybob> = wrote: = On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Justin Marquez wrote: = = The average ocean temperature actually was reported as = declined  a bitlast year.  Must've been the cooling effect of = all those melting polar ice caps.  No, wait... the Antartica polar = ice cap is reported nearing a historical peak in size.  Could it = be.... Al is playing POLITICS instead of SCIENCE... again?? = You wouldn't happen to = have sources for this, would you? = Scot "because it sounds like BS to me" Murphy = "One of the curious things about = censorship is that no one seems to want it for himself." = --Edgar = Dale
-- Sandy Andinawww.myspace.com/sandyandina = --Apple-Mail-4--630101279--

17) From: Justin Marquez
On Dec 28, 2007 11:49 AM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
And, when global warming studies endlessly create more grant monies (much
like a poorly written FORTRAN DO loop) you don't always get objective
science either.
The data does not appear clear cut in either direction.  In 20 or so years,
it will be more certain.
The question is: "Will it be too late by then?"  Too late for what...?
Depends on where you stand on the issue!!
There is enough dissent amongst real, practicing climate scientists that
what we need is an objective study of the issue, not just drum beating.
There are probably too many oxes to gore to get an objective study, OR AT
LEAST AN OBJECTIVE READING OF ANY STUDY.
When we look at such things as "carbon mitigation credits" it does not
foster much confidence, either.  I am convinced that much of that hooey is,
well, hooey.
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)

18) From: Justin Marquez
Hey -
I am trying to see how to find out what Dr. Coleman's degrees are actually
in.
Check this info out....http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11338421.htmlThe folks quoted therein appear to be real climate scientists.
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On Dec 28, 2007 12:51 PM, Sandra Andina  wrote:
<Snip>
--

19) From: Jeff Anderson
"...POLITICS instead of SCIENCE...
Aren't both sides are accused of the same?
Since none of us has time traveled to 2080 yet, no reasonable person can 
say with absolute certainty beyond the shadow of any and all doubts that 
we do or do not face global warming. So maybe it's time to take an 
entirely new look at the problem/non-problem, whichever it may be. Check 
out this video, and don't forget, "The mind is like a parachute. It only 
works if it's open.":http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfIOK, time for a cup of coffee now...
Jeff
Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>

20) From: Zara Haimo
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
<Snip>
Very punny...

21) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-42--627144952
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>
Only if you don't want it to be.
I have a friend who took a similar position to yours in an argument  
with me. She thinks it's all about grant money. There are a great  
number of logical reasons why that's a fallacy, but the main one is,  
if the scientists are knowingly pursuing an incorrect hypothesis in  
order to get grant money, thereby being liars and frauds, why wouldn't  
they do something with profit motive involved? And if scientists are  
really this easily misdirected, why haven't they done this about such  
massive projects in the past? And then, how could you trust anything  
from scientists? By the time I got done with the argument, her only  
defense was, "So what are we supposed to DO about it? You think we can  
actually get people to agree on something to do?" Wow...so since the  
problem is tough, we should abandon it. Fatalism. What a fallback  
position.
Look. People try to say that evolution is "debatable." It's not. It's  
only debatable if you want to warp science and opinion to make it so.  
Otherwise, the science is so overwhelming that it's as close to a  
physical law (like gravity) as it will ever get. (It is only a  
"theory" because evolution can't be directly observed among random  
subjects--that is, observers tend to die of old age, as do following  
generations, before observable evolution of higher life forms takes  
place.) Similarly, there are a few dissenters in the scientific  
community, but the science is simply overwhelming. It doesn't help  
that much of the "opposition science" is funded by petroleum, mining,  
logging, and other industries using their muscle to protect their  
profits.
The science is decisively on the side of human-caused climate change.  
If we act, we *may* be able to head it off. If we don't, we can't.  
Isn't it better to err on the side of caution rather than roll the  
dice and play the odds with billions of human lives?
Scot "like the science, the answer is obvious" Murphy
--
"Liberals inhabit a world painted a thousand shades of gray.  
Conservatives live in a black and white world."
	--David Morris
--Apple-Mail-42--627144952
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 2:06 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
The data does not appear clear cut = in either direction.  Only if you = don't want it to be.
I have a friend who took a = similar position to yours in an argument with me. She thinks it's all = about grant money. There are a great number of logical reasons why = that's a fallacy, but the main one is, if the scientists are knowingly = pursuing an incorrect hypothesis in order to get grant money, thereby = being liars and frauds, why wouldn't they do something with profit = motive involved? And if scientists are really this easily misdirected, = why haven't they done this about such massive projects in the past? And = then, how could you trust anything from scientists? By the time I got = done with the argument, her only defense was, "So what are we supposed = to DO about it? You think we can actually get people to agree on = something to do?" Wow...so since the problem is tough, we should abandon = it. Fatalism. What a fallback position.
Look. People try to say = that evolution is "debatable." It's not. It's only debatable if you want = to warp science and opinion to make it so. Otherwise, the science is so = overwhelming that it's as close to a physical law (like gravity) as it = will ever get. (It is only a "theory" because evolution can't be = directly observed among random subjects--that is, observers tend to die = of old age, as do following generations, before observable evolution of = higher life forms takes place.) Similarly, there are a few dissenters in = the scientific community, but the science is simply overwhelming. It = doesn't help that much of the "opposition science" is funded by = petroleum, mining, logging, and other industries using their muscle to = protect their profits. 
The science is decisively = on the side of human-caused climate change. If we act, we *may* be able = to head it off. If we don't, we can't. Isn't it better to err on the = side of caution rather than roll the dice and play the odds with = billions of human lives?

Scot "like the science, = the answer is obvious" = Murphy --"Liberals inhabit a world = painted a thousand shades of gray. Conservatives live in a black and = white world." --David Morris
= --Apple-Mail-42--627144952--

22) From: Jack M. Rogers
Scot Murphy wrote:
<Snip>
Err on whichever side you think is better...but don't expect the rest of 
the world to fall in line with you like lemmings.  And if we disagree, 
we're not going to be compelled to play along, are we?  That would not 
be very...liberal, now would it.
Jack

23) From: Justin Marquez
On Dec 28, 2007 1:41 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
So, you and Mr. Pascal attend the same church, eh?
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)

24) From: McConnel
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
And I hold that even if the temps rise, antarctica melts and the seas =
rise the extra water will just flow off the earth's edge as predicted by =
many "scientists" in the 14th century. 
Oh--and I do think Anokhi seems more balanced with more aging.

25) From: Ross
Jeff,
Interesting video.  Makes a great argument if you agree with his basic 
assumptions that:
A.  Humans can give politicians enough money to make meaningful change in 
the climate of  the planet.
B.  That the consequences of acting and being wrong are better than the 
consequences on not acting and being wrong.
I find assumption A to have a high probability of being false.
Assumption B is a guess not a certainty, I can see it going either way 
depending on a host of other variables.
So my conclusion is this video is a great exercise for a class in logic or 
rhetoric.  And could even be used to show how a classic business tool like a 
decision matrix is only as good as the assumptions you plug into it.
Ross

26) From: Jeff Anderson
"...don't expect the rest of the world to fall in line with you like 
lemmings..."
Interesting choice of words. If global warming is real, aren't we acting 
like lemmings by ignoring the cliff we're approaching? What's the worst 
that can happen if we change course, other than creating entirely new 
industries and jobs, and eliminating our dependence on Mideast oil? 
What's the worst that can happen if we don't, other than making the 
planet uninhabitable?
Refusal to consider all the science, all perspectives, all possible 
outcomes, and all alternatives is purely political, and totally 
irrational. I think one thing that all reasonable people can agree on is 
that decisions about global warming should not be political.
Jeff
Jack M. Rogers wrote:
<Snip>

27) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-44--625412253
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Jack M. Rogers wrote:
<Snip>
"Go ahead and go fight that Hitler fellow...but don't expect the rest  
of the U.S. to fall in line with you like lemmings. And if we  
disagree, we're not going to be compelled to fight with you, are we?  
That would not be very...liberal, now would it."
Scot "how does it sound now?" Murphy
---
"What you don't do can be a destructive force."
	--Eleanor Roosevelt
--Apple-Mail-44--625412253
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 2:45 PM, Jack M. Rogers wrote:
Scot = Murphy wrote: The science is = decisively on the side of human-caused climate change. If we act, we = *may* be able to head it off. If we don't, we can't. Isn't it better to = err on the side of caution rather than roll the dice and play the odds = with billions of human lives? Err on whichever side you think is = better...but don't expect the rest of the world to fall in line with you = like lemmings.  And if we disagree, we're not going to be compelled = to play along, are we?  That would not be very...liberal, now would = it. "Go ahead and go fight that Hitler = fellow...but don't expect the rest of the U.S. to fall in line with you = like lemmings. And if we disagree, we're not going to be compelled to = fight with you, are we? That would not be very...liberal, now would = it."

Scot "how does it sound = now?" Murphy
---"What you don't do can = be a destructive force." --Eleanor Roosevelt
= = --Apple-Mail-44--625412253--

28) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-45--625271312
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you are inferring that  
science is a religion, I suggest you read more about the scientific  
method and how it's been refined and developed over centuries.
Scot "faith is for the faithful..science is for the knowledgeable"  
Murphy
---
"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men."
	--Frederick Douglass
--Apple-Mail-45--625271312
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 2:51 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
So, you and Mr. Pascal attend = the same church, eh? I'm not sure what = you mean by that, but if you are inferring that science is a religion, I = suggest you read more about the scientific method and how it's been = refined and developed over centuries. 

Scot "faith is for = the faithful..science is for the knowledgeable" Murphy

---"It is easier = to build strong children than to repair broken men." = --Frederick Douglass
= --Apple-Mail-45--625271312--

29) From: Jeff Anderson
Regarding A, humans can't give enough money to politicians to fix it, 
and I don't know of anyone who proposes they can. Humans can make 
lifestyle choices, and choices about what forms of energy to consume. 
Don't we have a market-driven economy, and isn't it fueled by consumer 
demand?
Regarding B, I would absolutely love to hear what variables would lead 
to a different conclusion. I'm all ears.
Jeff
Interesting video.  Makes a great argument if you agree with his basic 
assumptions that:
A.  Humans can give politicians enough money to make meaningful change 
in the climate of  the planet.
B.  That the consequences of acting and being wrong are better than the 
consequences on not acting and being wrong.
I find assumption A to have a high probability of being false.
Assumption B is a guess not a certainty, I can see it going either way 
depending on a host of other variables.
So my conclusion is this video is a great exercise for a class in logic 
or rhetoric.  And could even be used to show how a classic business tool 
like a decision matrix is only as good as the assumptions you plug into it.
Ross

30) From: Justin Marquez
On Dec 28, 2007 1:41 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
Why am I suspicious of the man-caused global warming claims?  Because it
suddenly popped up when people have been studying climate for quite a while.
Because it is being championed by the most liberal segments of our society.
Because the "fix" involves enforcing policies that penalize us much more
than the rest of the world.  Because suddenly it has become "politically
correct". And because the data appears to have been "cooked" from some of
the earlier studies upon which others rest. Because the French scientist who
first sounded an alarm has recanted his earlier position.  Because there is
no real accord amongst scientists that it is a real problem. Because it was
just 30 years or so ago when the big worry was "Is There A New Ice Age
Coming?". Because "scientists" told us that margarine was better for us than
butter, and now different "scientists" say butter is better. Now all of a
sudden chocolate is good for us.
It's just hard to find a good concensus any more.
BUT... You won't get any argument from me on the reality of evolution.
Who do we think we are to tell God how He/She did/does anything?  Maybe by
using the talents He/She gave us, we may be allowed to achieve some
understanding of how Life came to be on our little mud ball. If God
created us by evolution - so what? Why would that shake my faith in God?
Which is harder work if You are an all-powerful universe creator... saying
"Let there be light! POOF!" or building an entire complex system that
supports itself and generates light according to the laws You created? All I
can say is "Either way...Yaaaaay! You ROCK, God!"
(There ya go, that's about as liberal as I ever get!)
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)

31) From: Justin Marquez
On Dec 28, 2007 2:10 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
If I recall my ol' history stuff correctly, there were some liberals who did
feel that way about figting Hitler. Both here and abroad.
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)

32) From: Jeff Anderson
Does anyone know which coffees are liberal and which are conservative? I 
sure don't want to consider buying the wrong ones.
Jeff

33) From: Justin Marquez
That Anoki stuff is DEFINITELY LIBERAL.
:-)
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On Dec 28, 2007 3:03 PM, Jeff Anderson  wrote:
<Snip>

34) From: Treshell
<Snip>
't
<Snip>
nd
<Snip>
No I moved to Wyoming 8 years ago:>
treshell

35) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-2--620143181
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>
So your primary objection is political, not scientific.
<Snip>
In what way? Are you simply relying on what the right wing, with its  
pro-corporate, pro-free market, anti-responsibility agenda is pushing?
<Snip>
That doesn't mean he is right. Again, with an avalanche of data, the  
majority of the world's climatologists have declared this an  
emergency. You aren't arguing that they're all following a mistaken  
path because of one scientist's alleged mistake, are you?
<Snip>
There is an accord. What you have is, on one side, thousands of  
scientists in consensus. On the other, a hundred or so scientists, not  
all of them independent of market forces, "doubting." The data are  
there; the conclusions of the dissenters are suspect; the overwhelming  
consensus is that there is a problem.
<Snip>
Not among climatologists. The "ice age" nonsense was media-driven at a  
time of great upheaval and received notoriety along with pseudo- 
science such as Bigfoot, "Chariots of the Gods," the Bermuda Triangle,  
and pyramid power. There were no climatologists at that time even  
suggesting a new ice age was coming. Certainly there was no consensus,  
as there is now, among the scientific community.
<Snip>
Scientific information changes and evolves as more data arise.  
Chocolate is only "good" in that it contains anti-oxidants. It is  
still high in fat and sugar, making it *not* good. You get more  
benefit out of broccoli and spinach. No nutritionist suggests that  
chocolate is some sort of unvarnished good without detriments; they  
suggest that, in moderation, it might be helpful. No nutritionist  
would suggest you eat chocolate instead of no-fat anti-oxidant rich  
foods like green, leafy vgetables, blueberries, and whatnot. As far as  
butter, it's still not good for you. It's all fat with little dietary  
benefit. But if you are going to choose between butter or margarine,  
you're better off with butter because margarine has transfats. Thirty  
years ago there was no research on transfatty acids. Now research is  
in and they've learned it contributes to heart disease more than just  
plain fat.
We don't have that luxury right now. If we wait until every skeptic of  
global warming is satisfied that there is no problem, billions could  
be dead and cities underwater, with much of the remaining land area  
turned to desert. It's not as if we'll be able to do anything at that  
point. It will be, in human terms, irreversible. Do you stand in front  
of a train and wait until you've got the data that the engineer has  
seen you and will be able to stop it on time...or do you do the smart  
thing and get off the tracks? The consequences, if we wait until all  
skeptics are satisfied, are catastrophic and irreversible. That last  
word alone should spur us to action. If we act and we were wrong, the  
economic effects are reversible. If we do not act and we were right,  
the effects are irreversible. Can you live with the guilt of never  
having acted when millions drown?
Scot "this is a moral issue" Murphy
--
"A conservative is a man who believes nothing should be done for the  
first time."
	--Alfred E. Wiggam
--Apple-Mail-2--620143181
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 3:23 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:

Why am I suspicious of the = man-caused global warming claims?  Because it suddenly popped up = when people have been studying climate for quite a while. Because it is = being championed by the most liberal segments of our society. Because = the "fix" involves enforcing policies that penalize us much more than = the rest of the world.  Because suddenly it has become "politically = correct".
So your primary objection = is political, not scientific.
And because the data appears = to have been "cooked" from some of the earlier studies upon which others = rest.
In what way? Are you = simply relying on what the right wing, with its pro-corporate, pro-free = market, anti-responsibility agenda is pushing? Because the French scientist = who first sounded an alarm has recanted his earlier = position. 
That doesn't mean he is = right. Again, with an avalanche of data, the majority of the world's = climatologists have declared this an emergency. You aren't arguing that = they're all following a mistaken path because of one scientist's alleged = mistake, are you? Because there is no real = accord amongst scientists that it is a real = problem.
There is an accord. What = you have is, on one side, thousands of scientists in consensus. On the = other, a hundred or so scientists, not all of them independent of market = forces, "doubting." The data are there; the conclusions of the = dissenters are suspect; the overwhelming consensus is that there is a = problem. Because it was just 30 = years or so ago when the big worry was "Is There A = New Ice Age Coming?".
Not among climatologists. = The "ice age" nonsense was media-driven at a time of great upheaval and = received notoriety along with pseudo-science such as Bigfoot, "Chariots = of the Gods," the Bermuda Triangle, and pyramid power. There were no = climatologists at that time even suggesting a new ice age was coming. = Certainly there was no consensus, as there is now, among the scientific = community.
Because "scientists" told us = that margarine was better for us than butter, and now different = "scientists" say butter is better. Now all of a sudden chocolate is good = for us.
Scientific information = changes and evolves as more data arise. Chocolate is only "good" in that = it contains anti-oxidants. It is still high in fat and sugar, making it = *not* good. You get more benefit out of broccoli and spinach. No = nutritionist suggests that chocolate is some sort of unvarnished good = without detriments; they suggest that, in moderation, it might be = helpful. No nutritionist would suggest you eat chocolate instead of = no-fat anti-oxidant rich foods like green, leafy vgetables, blueberries, = and whatnot. As far as butter, it's still not good for you. It's all fat = with little dietary benefit. But if you are going to choose between = butter or margarine, you're better off with butter because margarine has = transfats. Thirty years ago there was no research on transfatty acids. = Now research is in and they've learned it contributes to heart disease = more than just plain fat. 
We don't have that luxury = right now. If we wait until every skeptic of global warming is satisfied = that there is no problem, billions could be dead and cities underwater, = with much of the remaining land area turned to desert. It's not as if = we'll be able to do anything at that point. It will be, in human terms, = irreversible. Do you stand in front of a train and wait until you've got = the data that the engineer has seen you and will be able to stop it on = time...or do you do the smart thing and get off the tracks? The = consequences, if we wait until all skeptics are satisfied, are = catastrophic and irreversible. That last word alone should spur us to = action. If we act and we were wrong, the economic effects are = reversible. If we do not act and we were right, the effects are = irreversible. Can you live with the guilt of never having acted when = millions drown?

Scot "this is a moral = issue" Murphy
--"A = conservative is a man who believes nothing should be done for the first = time." --Alfred E. = Wiggam
= = --Apple-Mail-2--620143181--

36) From: Brett Mason
OK, so I am going here only one more time, then I'm done with this
long diatribe...
I would caution your dismissive of these 100 scientists, considering
they represent the highes echelon in Scholarship.  Here's where a few
of them hail from:
World Federation of Scientists;
Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute;
International Arctic Research Center
MIT;
IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand;
University Jean Moulin;
Stockholm University;
Princeton University;
Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland;
Geological Museum in Norway;
 U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
two specifically from within the IPCC
It's a tough thing to assert that only the scientists on the "warming"
side are credible.  In fact, there's enough highly reputable voices on
the other side, that the claim of this argument being over is possibly
a few minutes premature...
Scot, the Global Warming Science you mention is selective,
manipulative, and disingenuous.  It only takes one evidence to show
the theory is flawed, and there are very many.  One for example is the
finding of leafy vegetation below the ice caps.  This, for example,
indicates the polar regions have been warmer, can accept warmer, and
all life will not end.
Whatever, fight the fight you must fight.  Someday, when I am out
walking my polar bears on the sunny polar seashore, we can discuss
this again...
Regards,
Brett
On 12/28/07, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

37) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-4--619732379
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>
Actually, conservatives. America First-ers. The isolationist crowd.  
Never mind that; the point is, the dissenters weren't given the choice  
to opt out. You don't get to choose whether the enemy will attack you  
depending on whether you like being part of the war. You don't get to  
choose whether your city will drown because you disbelieve in climate  
change. This isn't something you can opt out of because you don't want  
your taxes going to it. The Army won't refuse to defend you if you  
don't agree with their mission. In this case, dissenters will (if we  
act) just have to deal with having their lives saved.
Scot "sad but true" Murphy
--
"Born originals, how does it come to pass that we die copies?"
	--Edward Young
--Apple-Mail-4--619732379
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 3:29 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:

If I recall my ol' history stuff = correctly, there were some liberals who did feel that way about figting = Hitler. Both here and abroad. Actually, = conservatives. America First-ers. The isolationist crowd. Never mind = that; the point is, the dissenters weren't given the choice to opt out. = You don't get to choose whether the enemy will attack you depending on = whether you like being part of the war. You don't get to choose whether = your city will drown because you disbelieve in climate change. This = isn't something you can opt out of because you don't want your taxes = going to it. The Army won't refuse to defend you if you don't agree with = their mission. In this case, dissenters will (if we act) just have to = deal with having their lives saved.

Scot "sad but true" = Murphy
--"Born = originals, how does it come to pass that we die copies?" = --Edward Young
= --Apple-Mail-4--619732379--

38) From: Rich
You can tell its real serious when Hitler gets drug around the ring one 
more time.  Lets leave Adolf Hitler and Elanor Roosevelt out of this as 
neither has anything to add to the discussion.
There is no evidence that man can impact the future climate.  It is only 
a theory that man is responsible for the present slow increase in 
temperature.  And the integrity and validity of the supporting data is 
suspect.  Thee is a good case to be made that the earth experiences 
cycles of warming and cooling that have approximately a 25 year period. 
  This can be shown historically.
Rushing out with a high dollar crash project strikes me as both dumb and 
foolhardy. How will you obtain compliance in the scheme from every other 
country?
A better approach is to foster the idea of making the minimum impact 
along with th minimum inconvenience.
Remember, earth worship is a very old religion.  There is a difference 
between science and religion.
Scot Murphy wrote:
<Snip>

39) From: Aaron Scholten
I have a solution to show how much you all care about the environment ad 
nauseum.
If global warming is such a horriffic and immediate threat, and if all 
the bedwetting and screaming is true that every single person must do 
absolutely everything possible, immediately, no matter the cost... as 
many would like us to believe.  I propose this to the like minded folks 
on this list.
Coffee is NOT vital to a persons survival.
If global warming is such a evil thing, and all must do whatever they 
can to stop it, I urge you to stop drinking your coffee IMMEDIATELY.   
Afterall, roasting coffee releases that horrible gas CO2, your arch 
enemy.   So... are you going to practice what you preach, stop drinking 
coffee, sodas, beer, and many other activities that are not necessary to 
life, as an example...or are all of you going to continue being 
hypocrites, demanding that the rest of the world do all these drastic 
changes, but your own little 'episode's of non compliance really won't 
hurt now will they.??
Oh, and actually, using a computer for this mailing list is really not 
vital to your survival either, computers use electricity, which causes 
CO2 to be released in its production, or worse yet in your eyes, atomic 
energy and nuclear waste.  Just another example of ways one who was 
truly concerned about their carbon footprint could reduce it... IF they 
truly cared.
when the global warming moonbats actually start putting into practice 
what they preach, and actually start 'leading by example'... though very 
few of them ever lead... just demand.... THEN maybe the rest of the 
people might start taking them seriously.
But, to show how nice a guy I am,  Ill do my share to help.  Ill open my 
beers very slowly, that will limit the release of CO2 into the 
atmosphere.  Ill also try not to fart as much either but those have a 
habit of sneaking out sometimes no matter how hard you try so won't 
guarantee curtailment of that green cloud... err I mean greenhouse gas.
I just hope that whoever is elected next president, doesn't plunge the 
US into this regurgitated santorum and lead us into economic ruin over a 
'theory' that at very best, is inconclusive.
Aaron

40) From: Aaron Scholten
Jeff Anderson wrote:
<Snip>
Folgers and Maxwell house are liberal coffees   ... Starbucks definately 
liberal.... so you have a choice.
either come over to the dark side luke... or start drinking those :)
Aaron

41) From: Jeff Anderson
Or we could all just shut up and leave it to those who are actually 
qualified to work it out. All this hot air just melted another glacier.
For what it's worth, if 100 doctors tell me I need surgery, and fast, 
and another says "maybe, maybe not", what should I do? Wait and see?
 (I know, I know...I'm terrible at following my own suggestions).
Jeff
Aaron Scholten wrote:
<Snip>

42) From: Jeff Anderson
The conservative side is the dark side? Oops! Freudian slip?
 ;-)
Seriously, why does every theory, every thing, every idea, and everybody 
under the sun have to be classified either "liberal" or "conservative" 
these days?
Personally,  I think we're being duped.
Working together to do great things is what made our country great...not 
liberals, not conservatives, and not petty political sniping, 
divisiveness, and American against American.
Jeff
Aaron Scholten wrote:
<Snip>

43) From: Ross
Jeff,
A. You are free to make your lifestyle choices.  I may at some point in the 
future agree with you, maybe not.  At this point there is too much rhetoric 
and too few facts for my liking.  Thank you so much for assuring me that no 
politician will ask me for money for this project, I am greatly relieved. 
B. You would love to hear variables?  Somehow I get the feeling you think 
there are no variables that might change your conclusion.  You should be the 
one wondering if there are any variables to your certain conclusion.  When 
you open your mind to that possibility then some variables will be obvious 
to you, grasshopper.   Seriously Jeff, I don't think either of us will be 
convincing the other any time soon.  This thread is not helping me improve 
my coffee roasting.
Ross

44) From: Ross
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Justin,
I hear you, I have many of the same doubts about the certainty of this =
"crisis".
Ross

45) From: Ross
Jeff,
That's easy, the high moisture content wet process are the liberal ones.  
The hard dry ones are conservative.  There are days when each is good.
Ross

46) From: Aaron
dark as in dark coffee... oh you were talking about sides... they are 
both dark and evil... I thought you seen that already?
and thats what is so funny about politics.   folks will become so 
polarized yet all the politicians are the same, they hate each other 'on 
tv' yet when the cameras are off and the day is over, go out together 
and have a beer... They all are corrupt, the are all lying to us, about 
everything and there is no difference anymore between dems and repubs...
But since the majority of americans are sub standard on the educational 
level, and firmly believe every little bit of garbage being fed to them 
by the news and are more concerned about a slut like britney spears or 
paris hilton than national events...it's easy for said politicians to 
spin their lies and false promises and otherwise buy the votes they need 
to stay in office.
With that, the moment any politician 'endorses' any cause, you know 
right then and there, that something is not quite right about it 
anymore, lies are hidden somewhere, and will be either exposed or 
spread, according to what is needed to use that 'cause' for votes.
Aaron

47) From: Frank Parth
Even the European governments don't take it that seriously. The EU government moves its headquarters twice a year from 
France to Belgium at a huge cost in energy.
Frank
<Snip>

48) From: Jeff Anderson
How can we reasonably criticize people for failing to utilize 
alternatives which don't exist yet, because we refuse to believe they're 
necessary even in the light of overwhelming evidence, and use that as 
"evidence" that the EU doesn't take it seriously? C'mon people, if you 
can't do better than that, it's time to bow out of the conversation! ;-)
Jeff
Frank Parth wrote:
<Snip>

49) From: John Brown
follow the grant money.
you odn't publish on our side you will not get any more
Scot Murphy wrote:
<Snip>

50) From: Scott Miller
Damn Aaron. I was all set to do my part and lead by example. Ya know, I'm
sitting here drinking that "last ever" Jones Soda Root Beer ... I burped
.... this got me chuckling .... chuckling so hard .... I tooted .... Damn,
I'm not doing a very good job at this reducing C02 emissions thing.
I'm going to roast some beans and say the hell with it.
cheers,
Scott --> now, I'm thinking I'll just live fast, love hard, die young, and
leave a beautiful memory .... with a coffee cup in my hand.
On Dec 28, 2007 4:55 PM, Aaron Scholten  wrote:
<Snip>

51) From: Allon Stern
--Apple-Mail-1--609808093
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
On Dec 28, 2007, at 1:53 PM, "McConnel"   
wrote:
<Snip>
My theory, based upon pastafarian theology, is that as piracy  
declines, thus causing an increase in global warming, the plolar ice  
caps will melt; the coastlines will recede, causing an increase in the  
amount of ocean; the increased amount of ocean will lead to an  
increase in piracy, reducing the global warming, and leading to the  
ice caps refreezing. This system will oscillate until equilibrium is  
reached.
And let us say, ramen.
ref:http://www.venganza.org/-
allon
--Apple-Mail-1--609808093
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetF-8
On Dec 28, 2007, at 1:53 PM, "McConnel" <rustylane> wrote:
And I hold that even if the temps rise, antarctica 
melts and the seas rise the extra water will just flow off the earth's edge as 
predicted by many "scientists" in the 14th century.
My theory, based upon pastafarian theology, is that as piracy declines, thus causing an increase in global warming, the plolar ice caps will melt; the coastlines will recede, causing an increase in the amount of ocean; the increased amount of ocean will lead to an increase in piracy, reducing the global warming, and leading to the ice caps refreezing. This system will oscillate until equilibrium is reached.
And let us say, ramen.
ref: -allon">http://www.venganza.org/class="webkit-block-placeholder">-allon --Apple-Mail-1--609808093--

52) From: Homeroaster
Whether there's global warming or not, we are definitely poisoning our 
environment at an alarming rate.  It is visibly obvious to even the most 
casual observer.  Never in the history of man have there been so many 
people, needing so many resources, and being so dependent on the use and 
burning of fossil fuels.  Even if global warming was found to not be an 
immediate threat, I would think it safe to assume we need to take drastic 
action to keep a crisis from occurring in the future.  It is the responsible 
thing to do to encourage less dependence on fossil fuels and doing less harm 
to the environment.  Can anyone argue with that?
*********************
Ed Needham
"to absurdity and beyond!"http://www.homeroaster.com

53) From: Scot Murphy
--Apple-Mail-10--607168625
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Rich wrote:
<Snip>
You want to reduce this to a matter of belief? That might be okay, but  
what are you going to do to accept responsibility when millions, or  
billions, die for your skepticism?
Scot "are you going on a drowned-city tour to apologize?" Murphy
---
"There are more scriptural reasons to oppose homophobia than to oppose  
homosexuality."
	--John B. Cobb
--Apple-Mail-10--607168625
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 4:49 PM, Rich wrote:
There is no evidence that man can = impact the future climate.  It is only a theory that man is = responsible for the present slow increase in temperature.  And the = integrity and validity of the supporting data is suspect.  Thee is = a good case to be made that the earth experiences cycles of warming and = cooling that have approximately a 25 year period.  This can be = shown historically. Rushing out with a high dollar crash project = strikes me as both dumb and foolhardy. How will you obtain compliance in = the scheme from every other country? A better approach is to = foster the idea of making the minimum impact along with th minimum = inconvenience. Remember, earth worship is a very old religion. =  There is a difference between science and = religion. = You want to reduce = this to a matter of belief? That might be okay, but what are you going = to do to accept responsibility when millions, or billions, die for your = skepticism?

Scot "are you going = on a drowned-city tour to apologize?" Murphy

---"There are = more scriptural reasons to oppose homophobia than to oppose = homosexuality." --John B. Cobb
= --Apple-Mail-10--607168625--

54) From: Rich
Have you taken a look at the commodity prices recently?  What impact do 
you think this is having on the world economy?  These prices have been 
driven up by the "alternative" energy craze.
Homeroaster wrote:
<Snip>
 > fossil fuels and doing less harm to the environment.  Can anyone
 > argue with that?
<Snip>

55) From: Rich
Fanatical environmentalism, including rabid belief in global warming, is 
a religion - earth worship, and nothing more.
Scot Murphy wrote:
<Snip>

56) From: Scot Murphy
On Dec 28, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Rich wrote:
<Snip>
Excellent refutation. Thorough analysis. Perhaps next you could try  
"your momma" or "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
Scot "nuh uh/uh huh" Murphy
---
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want  
it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want  
free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your  
blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of  
his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of  
yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the  
symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be  
one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.  
Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then,  
you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"
		--Aaron Sorkin (from "The American President")

57) From: Brett Mason
What will I do?
I for one will raise a toast to all those who die, and also those who
pretend that they are solving the problem - which doesn't exist.
By not driving to showboat events, I am actually reducing carbon
emissions - not to save the planet, but to let me race my Porsche at
top speed for the sheer thrill of it.
When Al Gore shuts off the lights in his 20 bedroom mansion, I will
begin to care - as long as I hear it through my favorite radical
actor...
Here's some Christmas Blend to all!
Brett
On 12/28/07, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

58) From: Homeroaster
We would be fools to think oil will always be there.  I don't think even the 
most conservative thinking people believe oil is in limitless supply.
Craze?  You make it sound like everyone is rushing the energy stores to 
hoard windmills or something.  With alternative, and inexhaustible energy 
sources becoming more and more feasible, why not use them?
The economy will adjust to supply and demand over time.
Letting the economy drive what could possibly be an environmental crisis 
seems a bit shortsighted to me.
(my last toxic post to this list on this topic)
*********************
Ed Needham
"to absurdity and beyond!"http://www.homeroaster.com*********************

59) From: Patrick R. Sklenar
guess i'll drop off the list for a while.  someone want to send me a 
note when this gets back to coffee related subjects?
thanks,
pat----

60) From: John Despres
Going to Patrick's house to have a cuppa and talk java...
John
Patrick R. Sklenar wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
John A C Despres
Hug your kids
616.437.9182http://www.sceneitallproductions.com

61) From: Treshell
Aw Pat just bulk delete.  Takes only seconds. Then just read what you love.
I tend to be in Gores camp but I will be sending some of the other sides
stuff to my favorite uncle from his favorite fem. Nazi.
treshell
<Snip>

62) From: John Brown
this whole discussion, is to me one of those not my problem things.  i 
ain't gonna live long enough for that to matter.  just about a 100% 
chance this is my year to die.  but please keep up the banter i do enjoy 
it.  whether it is about coffee, grinders, or roasters, and what ever 
else any one needs to throw in.  But please keep it civil!
Homeroaster wrote:
<Snip>

63) From: JanoMac
]]]] Ding! [[[[...and with this I enter the fray for a second to set a
record straight.
<Snip>
I was there. It was no more of a media hype than today's circus. There was
"real" science being done by "real" scientists and they interpreted the data
180 degrees (no pun intended) from what we see today.
Dr. Stephen Schneider was one of the biggest proponents of Global Cooling in
the mid 1970s and wrote a book about the coming Ice Age. He based his work
on particulate matter in the atmosphere, changing ice fields and ice core
data. He is still one of the biggest names in Climate Change circles, but
now on the other side of the coin.
 Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change (and Professor by
Courtesy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) at
Stanford University, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Environment
Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International
Studies. He has served as a consultant to Federal Agencies and/or White
House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton and
George W. Bush administrations.
(harvested from From Wikipedia:)
Interestingly, his degrees are in Mechanical Engineering Plasma Physics, for
those of you who think only certified, degreed, dyed-in-the-wool
"Climatologists" produce valid works or are able to analyze available data.
Kirk (trained/degreed environmental scientist, and lived through the Ice Age
of the 70s) Janowiak

64) From: Sandra Andina
--Apple-Mail-21--595274260
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here's where I stand. I'm a liberal, with all that entails. I'd rather  
talk about coffee, music, knives, pens, recipes, the Rose Bowl (go  
Illini!), holidays, home remedies, just about anything (except  
Chicago's dismal pro sports teams) right now than int'l politics or  
science controversy--this has been a grueling and news-heavy week and  
I'm getting enough of that fix on TV. Off to have an El Salvador Las  
Ranas macchiato.
On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:25 PM, JanoMac wrote:
<Snip>
Sandy Andina
www.myspace.com/sandyandina
--Apple-Mail-21--595274260
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here's where I stand. I'm a =
liberal, with all that entails. I'd rather talk about coffee, music, =
knives, pens, recipes, the Rose Bowl (go Illini!), holidays, home =
remedies, just about anything (except Chicago's dismal pro sports teams) =
right now than int'l politics or science controversy--this has been a =
grueling and news-heavy week and I'm getting enough of that fix on TV. =
Off to have an El Salvador Las Ranas macchiato.On Dec 28, =
2007, at 10:25 PM, JanoMac wrote:
]]]] Ding! = [[[[...and with this I enter the fray for a second to set a record = straight. From: Scot Murphy <deppitybob> <= /blockquote>Reply-To: homeroast= s.com Date: Fri, 28 Dec = 2007 16:37:52 -0500 To: homeroast= s.com Subject: Re: +OT: = Earth's temps... Because it was = just 30 years or so ago when the big worry was "Is There A = New Ice Age = Coming?". Not among = climatologists. The "ice age" nonsense was media-driven at a time = of great upheaval and received = notoriety along with pseudo-science such as Bigfoot, "Chariots of the Gods," the Bermuda Triangle, and = pyramid power. There were no = climatologists at that time even suggesting a new ice age = was coming. Certainly there = was no consensus, as there is now, among the scientific community. I was there. It = was no more of a media hype than today's circus. There was "real" = science being done by "real" scientists and they interpreted the = data 180 degrees (no pun intended) from what we see today. Dr. = Stephen Schneider was one of the biggest proponents of Global Cooling = in the mid 1970s and wrote a book about the coming Ice Age. He based = his work on particulate matter in the atmosphere, changing ice fields = and ice core data. He is still one of the biggest names in Climate = Change circles, but now on the other side of the coin. = Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change (and Professor = by Courtesy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) = at Stanford University, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for = Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for = International Studies. He has served as a consultant to Federal = Agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, = George H. W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush = administrations. (harvested from From = Wikipedia:) Interestingly, his degrees are in Mechanical = Engineering Plasma Physics, for those of you who think only = certified, degreed, dyed-in-the-wool "Climatologists" produce valid = works or are able to analyze available data. Kirk = (trained/degreed environmental scientist, and lived through the Ice = Age of the 70s) = Janowiak homeroa= st mailing list http://li=sts.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast To change your = personal list settings (digest options, vacations, unsvbscribes) go to =http://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings= Sandy Andinawww.myspace.com/sandyandina = --Apple-Mail-21--595274260--

65) From: raymanowen
Avoid yellow ice
On Dec 27, 2007 7:38 PM, Justin Marquez  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
"When the theme hits the bass, I dance the Jig!" - -Virgil Fox at the Mighty
Wichita (ex- NYC Paramount) WurliTzer- 1976

66) From: Jim Carter
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
this thread started around the same time as the one regarding finding a 
new knife. At that time, I had no interest in the knife discussion. My 
interest in that thread has grown considerably since reading this one. 
But, I'm pretty sure my intended use for a new knife would not be the 
same as for those taking part in that discussion.
Scot Murphy wrote:
<Snip>

67) From: Mailing Lists
--Apple-Mail-2--562458614
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Scot Murphy wrote:
<Snip>
Up until a couple years ago you hardly heard of global warming.  Then  
it became the hot button with everyone screaming that we are going to  
make the planet a tropic rainforest.  Pandemonium ensues and people  
throw TONS of money at it and blame the easy targets for more money.   
Throw in a warm winter and you have a classic self fulfilling prophecy.
What they fail to realize is there may be other factors that influence  
the natural climate cycles.  Like the sun's activity, the tilt of the  
earth, natural occurrences, etc. But some of those things take  
hundreds/thousands/millions of years to study.
What we do know is that the Earth has gone through heating and cooling  
cycles with and without humans.  We may be in one of those cycles  
now.  I do know that summers lately have not been as hot as usual - no  
days over 100 (we usually get at least 1-2) and the change to winter  
has been very abrupt.
<Snip>
It is just too hard to grasp.  I just don't grasp how life got here to  
evolve.  The basic theory makes sense that we adapt to our environment  
and after so many generations, the bad things are weeded out (like how  
we have less body hair than early man), etc.  But what I fail to get  
is how we all supposedly came from one celled organisms that over time  
grew to humans, birds, dogs, cats, etc.  And we came to being out of  
thin air.  Sorry, that's a hard thing to grasp hold of.  Intelligent  
Design seems to fit better.  We were put here by a Creator (God,  
Buddah, Allah, etc.) as basic life forms and evolution took over.   
That makes more sense to me.
<Snip>
In the past nobody was able to control it so what makes us so special  
now?
--Apple-Mail-2--562458614
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 28, 2007, =
at 2:41 PM, Scot Murphy wrote:
I have a = friend who took a similar position to yours in an argument with me. She = thinks it's all about grant money. There are a great number of logical = reasons why that's a fallacy, but the main one is, if the scientists are = knowingly pursuing an incorrect hypothesis in order to get grant money, = thereby being liars and frauds, why wouldn't they do something with = profit motive involved? And if scientists are really this easily = misdirected, why haven't they done this about such massive projects in = the past? And then, how could you trust anything from scientists? By the = time I got done with the argument, her only defense was, =
Up until a couple years = ago you hardly heard of global warming.  Then it became the hot = button with everyone screaming that we are going to make the planet a = tropic rainforest.  Pandemonium ensues and people throw TONS of = money at it and blame the easy targets for more money.  Throw in a = warm winter and you have a classic = self fulfilling prophecy.
What they fail to realize = is there may be other factors that influence the natural climate cycles. =  Like the sun's activity, the tilt of the earth, = natural occurrences, etc. But some of those things take = hundreds/thousands/millions of years to study.
What we do know is that = the Earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles with and without = humans.  We may be in one of those cycles now.  I do know = that summers lately have not been as hot as usual - no days over 100 (we = usually get at least 1-2) and the change to winter has been very = abrupt.
Look. People = try to say that evolution is "debatable." It's not. It's only debatable = if you want to warp science and opinion to make it so. Otherwise, the = science is so overwhelming that it's as close to a physical law (like = gravity) as it will ever get. (It is =
It is just too hard to = grasp.  I just don't grasp how life got here to evolve.  The = basic theory makes sense that we adapt to our environment and after so = many generations, the bad things are weeded out (like how we have less = body hair than early man), etc.  But what I fail to get is how we = all supposedly came from one celled organisms that over time grew to = humans, birds, dogs, cats, etc.  And we came to being out of thin = air.  Sorry, that's a hard thing to grasp hold of. =  Intelligent Design seems to fit better.  We were put here by = a Creator (God, Buddah, Allah, etc.) as basic life forms = and evolution took over.  That makes more sense to = me.
The science is = decisively on the side of human-caused climate change. If we act, we = *may* be able to head it off. If we don't, we can't. Isn't it better to = err on the side of caution rather than roll the dice and play the odds = with billions of human = lives? In the past = nobody was able to control it so what makes us so special = now?= --Apple-Mail-2--562458614--

68) From: Mailing Lists
On Dec 28, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Scot Murphy wrote:
<Snip>
Difference is the Hitler threat was a real, present danger to the  
whole world.  Not something that may be a part of a natural change  
outside our control.  Or, oh the horror, not even related to anything  
we've done.

69) From: Scot Murphy
On Dec 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Mailing Lists wrote:
<Snip>
It's only been in the popular media for the last few years. The  
subject's been talked about for around two decades. It's not just one  
warm winter: the years 1998-2007 have been the hottest on record for  
the entire planet.
<Snip>
They do take those things into account. One of the "skeptic" ideas has  
been that there is some sort of increased solar activity bringing this  
about. Well, they took that into account and said that there is  
increased solar activity, but not enough to make this drastic a  
difference. Plus we have the benefit of thousands of years' worth of  
environmental records in the Greenlandic and Antarctic ice sheets:  
hundreds, even thousands, of feet of ice that record changes in  
atmosphere, plant growth, and so on. What they've been able to  
determine is that while there have been cyclic changes, and always  
will be, no changes have been this drastic without some kind of  
outside influence. For instance, the Yucatan impact that plunged the  
world into a global cooling and (likely) killed off the dinosaurs.  
We've never seen as drastic and sudden a rise in global temperature as  
we have since the beginning of the industrial era.
<Snip>
See above. One of the popular misconceptions is that global warming  
either heats up the entire planet evenly or not at all. It's not like  
that. There are many, many factors that turn the weather to extremes  
for some, mild change for others--so far. But what is beyond denial is  
that glaciers are shrinking, the Arctic ice cap is melting, and the  
average global temperature is rising. Already, some islands in the  
Pacific are starting to vanish as the sea levels rise. None of this  
can be disputed: it can be seen with our own eyes. What is disputed is  
the cause, and the changes have been so drastic and sudden that it  
cannot be ascribed to a simple cyclic change. The data suggests, very  
heavily, that human activity has introduced pollutants that are  
changing the climate in many ways.
<Snip>
It may make sense from a lay perspective, but it's not science. One  
thing I have learned in my years is that just because I don't know  
about or understand something doesn't mean it's beyond comprehension  
for everyone. There are a lot of people out there much smarter than I.  
That doesn't prevent me from having enough of a grasp on the issues to  
critically think, but when it gets to remembering the names of all the  
various proteins and such, I get lost. So I don't dismiss an idea just  
because I don't have the equipment to understand it thoroughly. I read  
as much as I can and make my judgement then.
<Snip>
Because we made it. And if we started the change, we can control  
it...for the moment. Like an avalanche. You can roll a snowball down a  
mountain, and up to a point, you have the power to stop it Eventually,  
though, it's out of control, and the snow destroys. That's where we  
are right now. If we act, we can catch the snowball before it's out of  
control. Another few years, though, and it's an avalanche.
Scot "analogies 'backwards R' us" Murphy
---
"If hypocrisy were a deadly virus, this would be a lonely planet."
		--Craig Crawford

70) From: Dean
This is why polite groups don't allow these religious and other 
inflammatory posts.
Take it off line, stop slamming the this list.  Don't make us appeal to 
Tom or Les.
Coffee.  No Rants.
Dean
Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>

71) From: Justin Marquez
After reviewing the "What's the worst that can happen?" video as suggested
earlier by someone, it is apparent that in order to save future generations
from the *possibility*  of having their coastal homes and cities flooded
that we should IMMEDIATELY condemn all properties which are located within
the probable flood zone due to rising sea levels!  People and cities must
move to higher ground NOW! It is the only way we can be SURE they won't
drown.
(brought to you by the Fearmonger's Shop)
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On Dec 28, 2007 7:14 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
--

72) From: Scot Murphy
On Dec 29, 2007, at 6:24 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>
Ironic you should use that phrase, since the last seven years,  
including a needless war and other misadventures, have all come about  
because of fearmongering. "If you don't let us wiretap your calls  
without warrants...the terrists'll GITCHA!!!" Or "Vote for me or  
you'll DIE!" "You don't need habeas corpus...that's something the  
terrists want y'all to have!" If it weren't for scaring the American  
people out of their wits, there's no way these incompetent clowns  
would still be in office.
Scot "United States of BOO!" Murphy
--
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to  
liberty.  He is always in alliance with the despot ..."
	--Thomas Jefferson

73) From: Justin Marquez
And you accuse me of being political.
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On Dec 29, 2007 5:46 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>

74) From: Scot Murphy
On Dec 29, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Justin Marquez wrote:
<Snip>
When did I do that? I *know* I was being political. I only say that  
the anti-climate change position is based not on science but politics.  
That's my point. Are you denying that your arguments have been  
politically motivated?
Scot "I'm sure there's a juicy rationalization to be had here" Murphy
--
"... the Government of the United States of America is not, in any  
sense, founded on the Christian religion ..."
	--George Washington

75) From: Justin Marquez
Scot, I must apologize. On review, someone else here made the political
accusation.
My stance is based on the fact that there appears no genuine concensus
amonst scientists that a human-caused global climate emergency actually
exists or that it does not When I look at both side of the argument I see
websites, not actual science reports. Everyone throws out statements that
they get from someone else.
Then we see Al Gore as the chief champion of the warming crowd having a
house using far more energy and thus causing far more CO2 emission than
almost everyone else. I have to ask myself if he actually believes that a
problem exists.
Am I political about this? It depends.  Do I have an axe to grind - no.  I
just don't want anyone using political stuff to force something not
necessary down my wallet's throat. So, in that sense, perhaps it is
political.
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On Dec 29, 2007 9:26 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
--

76) From: Scot Murphy
On Dec 28, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>
You know, I think it *used* to be that way. Remember how Tip O'Neill  
and Ronald Reagan could go have a beer as friends after a long day  
wrangling? I think that's the way it should be. Now we have groups  
that don't want to deal with each other, real ideologues who refuse to  
compromise, not realizing that compromise is the soul of politics.  
Ideological warfare leads to fascism. I've read of senators who won't  
even speak to others on the opposite side of the fence. And who can  
forget Dick Cheney's response to Pat Leahy when Leahy asked him to  
come over to take a picture with Democrats?
No, we're in a take-no-prisoners stage of politics, and the only  
ideology that trumps all others in the halls of Congress is money.
Scot "nuke it from orbit..it's the only way to be sure" Murphy
---
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that  
all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community  
are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope  
ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and  
liberality."
	--George Washington

77) From: Scott Marquardt
On Dec 29, 2007 5:46 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
In my experience, this is a myth. I know no one who has supported the Iraq
war -- or even the Afghan one -- on account of fear. I know of no one who
has supported the Patriot Act or similar things on account of fear.
Seriously.
What I honestly suspect happens is that those who oppose such things observe
politicians engaging in fear-mongering in support of such things, then
wrongly conclude that those who agree with such politicians do so on account
of being vulnerable to the fearmongering. But that's like saying that the
reason the rain fell was that the shaman danced around the fire. It ain't
necessarily so.
In my experience, the only people who believe fear has been a major
determinant of support for various policies and actions are those who oppose
such actions. I think the attribution of fear is a way of simplifying one's
political opponents in order to more easily dismiss them.
Ironically, however, it has seemed to me that the point of claims of fear
breeding bad policy has been chiefly to generate alarm about the
policies.    ;-)
Bear in mind, this is only my experience, among the many people I know (who
inhabit many points in political space). I wouldn't think to assert that
others might not know scores of paranoid rightists who want the fed to have
a blank check for surveillance and so forth. I'm sure they exist. But they
wouldn't be conservatives, per se, because conservatives would only want
their STATES to have such powers.    :-P
My 2.
- Scott

78) From: Scot Murphy
On Jan 1, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Scott Marquardt wrote:
<Snip>
Trust me: I know an ultra-right wing couple who think it is only just  
and right that we should wipe out ALL muslims before they get US.  
Seriously. They're all in favor of completely nuking the Middle East  
and Indonesia because someday they may bomb us. And a man I know, who  
is Democrat but conservative, is all in favor of unrestricted  
wiretapping and domestic spying because he's afraid that someday the  
terrists will strike again and he thinks that will protect us.
Don't misunderestimate the power of fear.
Scot "the commie under your bed became a terrist" Murphy
---
"Here's a guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple."
	--Ann Richards, on GW Bush

79) From: Scott Marquardt
On Jan 1, 2008 2:53 PM, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
Among extreme cases such as you cite? Sure. But the discourse in the country
attributes such motivation to half the population.
Or, rather, it is attributed to half the population by the mirror image of
these extreme cases -- their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum.
Everyone else -- a vast majority of our citizens -- have more complex
motivations than the proverbial cockroach.
  This is trivially evident when we observe how inconsistent our citizens'
everyday behavior is with what one would expect given the theory that fear
is such a weak spot in their psyches. From my vantage point, a great number
of Americans are almost careless with their own lives, and should probably
have a healthy fear of many more things than they actually do. I don't think
this may be chalked up to not being well-informed. We constantly hear about
the dangers of obesity, yet I don't see anyone clamoring for laws allowing
the fed to intervene and snatch Happy Meals from the hands of fat children.
And where political hacks do exhort the public on such matters, ennui seems
the preferred response of this allegedly fear-vulnerable populace.
So many people blithely live in the presence of far more imminent dangers
than terrorism, yet often exhibit less fear than indifference.
IMO, someone should credibly explain why people so unfearing of imminent
dangers should be believed to be so very paranoid of remote ones.
But that would be an academic rational defense, since as I've mentioned,
empirically to my satisfaction the theory is defeated anyway.
Terrorists could attack tomorrow! And I'm not afraid.
- Scott

80) From: Brian Kamnetz
On Jan 1, 2008 4:29 PM, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>
<Snip>
This sounds like it may be related to "heuristics". Heuristics help
people to process information, and generally work quite well, but can
cause bias to creep unknown into the decision-making process. Three
categories of errors related to heuristics are "representativeness",
"availability", and "anchoring and adjustment".
For example, availability heuristic:  if the 10 o'clock news every
night focuses on crime, people will tend to overestimate how much
crime occurs in their community. This sort of judgment error will
affect what they are or are not afraid of.
Brian

81) From: Lynne
Ah, this was the subject of my Social Psychology class this past semester.
In a nutshell (no pun intended) people don't like to change. We as humans
are comfortable with the familiar, even to the point of accepting horrible
inequity (such as this country before the Civil Rights Movement, for
instance). The change with that was made by activism, and the eventual law,
much to the dismay of many back then.
Now, what I did learn is that intelligent people will respond to marketing
from a respected authority when it concerns serious stuff. The example from
our book was that while Hollywood stars might be successful selling many
products, we relate to those we consider to be authorities for the
purchasing of things that are considered more serious, such as insurance.
(in Russia, for example, the endorsement for something [again, in our book]
from a government based newspaper was not trusted, while the endorsement
from a noted rocket scientist was trusted and highly regarded.)
From a sociological viewpoint, the whole technique of discrediting the
messenger is actually quite interesting. This doesn't actually challenge the
facts - instead, it relates to how we actually respond to marketing.
Shoot the messenger, and discredit the message.
<Snip>
Remote dangers threaten the status quo, which goes back to basic human
nature. Also threatening the status quo is when people are told that they
have to make even small changes - many of these changes were made by my
parents during the depression (conserving personal financial resources), but
I believe the media has made it seem as though we are all entitled to our
excesses (let's face it - the U.S., at least,  is built not on conserving
our resources and finances, but on excess everything, sad to say..)
Lynne

82) From: Scott Marquardt
On Jan 1, 2008 4:04 PM, Lynne  wrote:
<Snip>
Some good responses.
So far, it looks as if these principles apply (concerning change) to both
obesity and Al Qaeda.
Maybe if Al Qaeda threatened to make us fatter, the combined effect of both
fears would engender sheer panic.
;-)
Or the stifling ennui would merely inspire still more engagement in extreme
sports and jackass stunts.
We're a peculiar tribe, we humans.
- Scott

83) From: Floyd Lozano
If they threaten my coffee supply, I will act swiftly and decisively.
-F
On Jan 1, 2008 5:47 PM, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>


HomeRoast Digest