On Jan 9, 1:27*pm, Harry Hope <riv...*ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
>
>> As the World Burns

>> How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
lobbying
>> campaigns in history to block progress on global warming

>> JEFF GOODELL

(crap cut)

www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
list of companies that fund the CRU.
It includes:
British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'

On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, yahoo.com">alanmc95210*yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
>>
> >> As the World Burns
>
> >> How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
> lobbying
> >> campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>
> >> JEFF GOODELL
>
> (crap cut)
>
> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>
> From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
> list of companies that fund the CRU.
> It includes:
> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'

What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't mount one
of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on
global warming?

On Jan 9, 8:05*pm, Unum <non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> *wrote:
> >>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn....
>
> > * *>> *As the World Burns
>
> > * *>> *How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
> > lobbying
> > * *>> *campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>
> > * *>> *JEFF GOODELL
>
> > (crap cut)
>
> >www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>
> > *From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
> > list of companies that fund the CRU.
> > It includes:
> > British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
> > Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
> > Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>
>> What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
mount one
>> of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
progress on
>> global warming?
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! Note that Shell , BP,
and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
rent seeking- A McIntir

On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, yahoo.com">alanmc95210*yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
>>
>>> >> As the World Burns
>>
>>> >> How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
>>> lobbying
>>> >> campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>>
>>> >> JEFF GOODELL
>>
>>> (crap cut)
>>
>>> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>>
>>> From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
>>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
>>> It includes:
>>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
>>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
>>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>>
> >> What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
> mount one
> >> of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
> progress on
> >> global warming?
> Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! Note that Shell , BP,
> and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
> rent seeking- A McIntir

Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.

On Jan 9, 11:05*pm, Unum <non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> *wrote:
> >>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn....
>
> > * *>> *As the World Burns
>
> > * *>> *How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
> > lobbying
> > * *>> *campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>
> > * *>> *JEFF GOODELL
>
> > (crap cut)
>
> >www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>
> > *From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
> > list of companies that fund the CRU.
> > It includes:
> > British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
> > Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
> > Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>
> What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't mount one
> of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on
> global warming?

• Global Warming is a colossal scam.
Any help in blocking that hoax is welcome.

—*—
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:16:51 -0600, Unum <noneof*yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

>On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, yahoo.com">alanmc95210*yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
>>>
>>>> >> As the World Burns
>>>
>>>> >> How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
>>>> lobbying
>>>> >> campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>>>
>>>> >> JEFF GOODELL
>>>
>>>> (crap cut)
>>>
>>>> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>>>
>>>> From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
>>>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
>>>> It includes:
>>>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
>>>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
>>>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>>>
>> >> What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
>> mount one
>> >> of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
>> progress on
>> >> global warming?
>> Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! Note that Shell , BP,
>> and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
>> rent seeking- A McIntir
>
>Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
>brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
>mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
>of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.


Post a reference, outhouse rumors don't count,
every energy company is promoting conservation, my
utility is owned by one of the biggest energy companies
and the sent me 4 CFL bulbs free plus coupons for
$10 off on 6 more.


If the AGW nutcases can't find something bad
to say about somebody they have nothing, a cat
got their tongue, they are lost for words, unwilling
to accept the fact that GreenHouse Gases cool the
atmosphere.

I M * good guy wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:16:51 -0600, Unum <noneof*yourbusiness.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, yahoo.com">alanmc95210*yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
>>>>> >> As the World Burns
>>>>> >> How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
>>>>> lobbying
>>>>> >> campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>>>>> >> JEFF GOODELL
>>>>> (crap cut)
>>>>> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>>>>> From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
>>>>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
>>>>> It includes:
>>>>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
>>>>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
>>>>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>>> >> What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
>>> mount one
>>> >> of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
>>> progress on
>>> >> global warming?
>>> Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! Note that Shell , BP,
>>> and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
>>> rent seeking- A McIntir
>> Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
>> brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
>> mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
>> of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.
>
>
> Post a reference, outhouse rumors don't count,
> every energy company is promoting conservation, my
> utility is owned by one of the biggest energy companies
> and the sent me 4 CFL bulbs free plus coupons for
> $10 off on 6 more.
>
>
> If the AGW nutcases can't find something bad
> to say about somebody they have nothing, a cat
> got their tongue, they are lost for words, unwilling
> to accept the fact that GreenHouse Gases cool the
> atmosphere.
>

The point remains that the only safe way into the future is to replace
our carbon emission economies by something sustainable to avoid that we
pump up the CO2 concentrations to unacceptable levels. Earlier I posted
the following on this problem.

> CO2 is a trace gas that increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 390 ppm today.
>
> This increase is responsible for trapping 1,5 Watt/m2 into the
> atmosphere, and also, we know from ice core records that the climate
> sensitivity factor is 0.75 K/(W/m2).
>
> Ultimately this means that you get 1,125 Kelvin from the CO2 added since
> 1750. We saw only 0.75C, so just by waiting we will get 0.375 Kelvin
> just for free thanks to climate inertia.
>
> But, and this adds to the Titanic model, for everything we add today to
> the Earth's atmosphere we will also receive the same amount back in the heat flux.
>
> Give it 100 years, and at the present rate of about 20 ppm/decade we
> will arrive at 390+200 = 590 ppm.
>
> You and I will not see these 590 ppm, but it is more than doubling the
> CO2 since the industrial revolution began.
>
> And now, my dear, just use David Archer's modtran4 model to do the rest,
> and this gives the following interesting table:
>
> ppm Iout dIout Kelvin Kmin Kmax Comment
> 180 291,266 -2,072 -1,5540 -1,0360 -2,0720 holocene minimum
> 280 289,194 0,000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 pre-industrial
> 390 287,687 1,507 1,1303 0,7535 1,5070 present day
> 490 286,619 2,575 1,9312 1,2875 2,5750
> 590 285,771 3,423 2,5673 1,7115 3,4230 now+100 years
> 690 285,049 4,145 3,1088 2,0725 4,1450
> 900 283,825 5,369 4,0268 2,6845 5,3690
> 1000 283,354 5,840 4,3800 2,9200 5,8400
> 1250 282,286 6,908 5,1810 3,4540 6,9080
> 1500 281,438 7,756 5,8170 3,8780 7,7560
> 2000 280,057 9,137 6,8528 4,5685 9,1370
> 2500 278,989 10,205 7,6538 5,1025 10,2050
> 3000 278,078 11,116 8,3370 5,5580 11,1160
>
> Column ppm is the atmospheric concentration of CO2, Iout is the outgoing
> flux, dIout is the flux absorbed in the atmosphere relative to the
> pre-industrial concentration, Kelvin gives the derived steady state
> temperature for the atmosphere, and Kmin/Kmax give the range associated
> with the temperatures because of uncertainties in the climate
> sensitivity factor.
>
> This is the thought behind my signature. Two degrees warming is
> unavoidable, 4 degrees warming is more likely and this will wipe out
> Greenland and Antarctica ultimately.

Q

--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:19:42 +0100, Roving rabbit <rabb1t*dot.com>
wrote:

>I M * good guy wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:16:51 -0600, Unum <noneof*yourbusiness.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, yahoo.com">alanmc95210*yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
>>>>>> >> As the World Burns
>>>>>> >> How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
>>>>>> lobbying
>>>>>> >> campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>>>>>> >> JEFF GOODELL
>>>>>> (crap cut)
>>>>>> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>>>>>> From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
>>>>>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
>>>>>> It includes:
>>>>>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
>>>>>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
>>>>>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>>>> >> What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
>>>> mount one
>>>> >> of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
>>>> progress on
>>>> >> global warming?
>>>> Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! Note that Shell , BP,
>>>> and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
>>>> rent seeking- A McIntir
>>> Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
>>> brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
>>> mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
>>> of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.
>>
>>
>> Post a reference, outhouse rumors don't count,
>> every energy company is promoting conservation, my
>> utility is owned by one of the biggest energy companies
>> and the sent me 4 CFL bulbs free plus coupons for
>> $10 off on 6 more.
>>
>>
>> If the AGW nutcases can't find something bad
>> to say about somebody they have nothing, a cat
>> got their tongue, they are lost for words, unwilling
>> to accept the fact that GreenHouse Gases cool the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>
>The point remains that the only safe way into the future is to replace
>our carbon emission economies by something sustainable to avoid that we
>pump up the CO2 concentrations to unacceptable levels. Earlier I posted
>the following on this problem.
>
>> CO2 is a trace gas that increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 390 ppm today.
>>
>> This increase is responsible for trapping 1,5 Watt/m2 into the
>> atmosphere, and also, we know from ice core records that the climate
>> sensitivity factor is 0.75 K/(W/m2).
>>
>> Ultimately this means that you get 1,125 Kelvin from the CO2 added since
>> 1750. We saw only 0.75C, so just by waiting we will get 0.375 Kelvin
>> just for free thanks to climate inertia.
>>
>> But, and this adds to the Titanic model, for everything we add today to
>> the Earth's atmosphere we will also receive the same amount back in the heat flux.
>>
>> Give it 100 years, and at the present rate of about 20 ppm/decade we
>> will arrive at 390+200 = 590 ppm.
>>
>> You and I will not see these 590 ppm, but it is more than doubling the
>> CO2 since the industrial revolution began.
>>
>> And now, my dear, just use David Archer's modtran4 model to do the rest,
>> and this gives the following interesting table:
>>
>> ppm Iout dIout Kelvin Kmin Kmax Comment
>> 180 291,266 -2,072 -1,5540 -1,0360 -2,0720 holocene minimum
>> 280 289,194 0,000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 pre-industrial
>> 390 287,687 1,507 1,1303 0,7535 1,5070 present day
>> 490 286,619 2,575 1,9312 1,2875 2,5750
>> 590 285,771 3,423 2,5673 1,7115 3,4230 now+100 years
>> 690 285,049 4,145 3,1088 2,0725 4,1450
>> 900 283,825 5,369 4,0268 2,6845 5,3690
>> 1000 283,354 5,840 4,3800 2,9200 5,8400
>> 1250 282,286 6,908 5,1810 3,4540 6,9080
>> 1500 281,438 7,756 5,8170 3,8780 7,7560
>> 2000 280,057 9,137 6,8528 4,5685 9,1370
>> 2500 278,989 10,205 7,6538 5,1025 10,2050
>> 3000 278,078 11,116 8,3370 5,5580 11,1160
>>
>> Column ppm is the atmospheric concentration of CO2, Iout is the outgoing
>> flux, dIout is the flux absorbed in the atmosphere relative to the
>> pre-industrial concentration, Kelvin gives the derived steady state
>> temperature for the atmosphere, and Kmin/Kmax give the range associated
>> with the temperatures because of uncertainties in the climate
>> sensitivity factor.
>>
>> This is the thought behind my signature. Two degrees warming is
>> unavoidable, 4 degrees warming is more likely and this will wipe out
>> Greenland and Antarctica ultimately.
>
>Q

Do you understand what unproven speculation
means, CO2-AGW speculation won't even be a theory
unless some parameters are reached.
4 degrees warming is sheer idiocy even if the
premise of AGW is as stated, places where the ice
sheet is more than 10,000 feet thick will not melt
at all, and that includes most of both Antarctica and
Greenland, which is why there is still ice there and
not over Canada and Norther Europe.

Anything is possible, but if GISS records are
checked for most weather stations cold winters
like this one are a regular occurrence, with some
months below the baseline.
Not only is the annual global average a poor
measure of anything, it is also not increasing as
predicted.

Just letting a computer program go to 3,000
PPMV shows a demented mind, there isn't enough
fossil fuel for that even if aquatic life wasn't
converting half of it to rocks that will stay as
rock unless it becomes magma.

I am getting tired of these "burning"
temperatures, if the sun comes out later today
I just have to get out of the house.

I have a problem with two of my win98
hard drives that were online having lost AGP
support, I can see one going bad, but not
both, I need to run an AGP ati video card
until I can find a PCI express card to match
my 32 inch monitor TV resolution.

If anybody knows a fix for this, thanks
in advance, I don't dare re-install win98
without spending hours copying files and
installing a $2000 program.

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:19:42 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :

> The point remains that the only safe way into the future is to replace
> our carbon emission economies by something sustainable to avoid that we
> pump up the CO2 concentrations to unacceptable levels. Earlier I posted
> the following on this problem.

Here you are wrong.
- even when all the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, bitumen) will have been
burned, around year 20100, the CO2 concentrations in atmosphere will
hardly have doubled, resulting in at most 0.6C temperature increase and
less than 0.6m level rise (some scientists say 0.10 +-0.10m).
- all your efforts to prevent the humanity to burn that fuel will be in
vain.
- As Cophenhaguen was the summit of the 'last chance', you know, better
than me, that it already too late.

On 10 Jan 2010 11:55:25 GMT, Sirius <Sirius*provider.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:19:42 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :
>
>> The point remains that the only safe way into the future is to replace
>> our carbon emission economies by something sustainable to avoid that we
>> pump up the CO2 concentrations to unacceptable levels. Earlier I posted
>> the following on this problem.
>
>Here you are wrong.
>- even when all the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, bitumen) will have been
>burned, around year 20100, the CO2 concentrations in atmosphere will
>hardly have doubled, resulting in at most 0.6C temperature increase and
>less than 0.6m level rise (some scientists say 0.10 +-0.10m).
>- all your efforts to prevent the humanity to burn that fuel will be in
>vain.
>- As Cophenhaguen was the summit of the 'last chance', you know, better
>than me, that it already too late.

It seems the problem some of the more vocal
AGW hypists have is not being able to assign time
related priorities, avoiding freezing is a lot more
important NOW than worrying about sea level
rise in a hundred years.

Oil will all but be gone in a hundred years
or so, and hopefully alternate energy electric
will have replaced coal and natural gas as fuel
in power plants.

Solar PV will become a significant fraction
of the grids before long, and solar steam electric
is perfect to install on farms in California and
other sun belt locations where water is readily
available, not in the desert where water is in
short supply.

The big problem now is the weather and
the economies, warming is hardly a thought
except maybe in Oz, but that is a small part
of the world's population.

The title of this thread shows how demented
some people are, even sarcasm or humor is not
appreciated when so much hardship is being
endured.

Sirius wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:19:42 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :
>
>> The point remains that the only safe way into the future is to replace
>> our carbon emission economies by something sustainable to avoid that we
>> pump up the CO2 concentrations to unacceptable levels. Earlier I posted
>> the following on this problem.
>
> Here you are wrong.
> - even when all the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, bitumen) will have been
> burned, around year 20100, the CO2 concentrations in atmosphere will
> hardly have doubled, resulting in at most 0.6C temperature increase and
> less than 0.6m level rise (some scientists say 0.10 +-0.10m).

cite?

> - all your efforts to prevent the humanity to burn that fuel will be in
> vain.

True, but please the citation.

> - As Cophenhaguen was the summit of the 'last chance', you know, better
> than me, that it already too late.

That is probably true as well, see my sig.

Q

--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.

http://yooohaaa.com/humor/itssohotjokes.htm

http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/634061/

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredeta...colorNo=6&pr=F

On Jan 10, 5:19*am, Roving rabbit <rab...*dot.com> wrote:
> I M * good guy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:16:51 -0600, Unum <non...*yourbusiness.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> *wrote:
> >>>> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> * *wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
> >>>>> * * >> * *As the World Burns
> >>>>> * * >> * *How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
> >>>>> lobbying
> >>>>> * * >> * *campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
> >>>>> * * >> * *JEFF GOODELL
> >>>>> (crap cut)
> >>>>>www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
> >>>>> * From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
> >>>>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
> >>>>> It includes:
> >>>>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
> >>>>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
> >>>>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
> >>> * *>> *What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
> >>> mount one
> >>> * *>> *of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
> >>> progress on
> >>> * *>> *global warming?
> >>> * * * Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! * Note that Shell , BP,
> >>> and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
> >>> rent seeking- A McIntir
> >> Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
> >> brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
> >> mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
> >> of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.
>
> > * * * * * Post a reference, outhouse rumors don't count,
> > every energy company is promoting conservation, my
> > utility is owned by one of the biggest energy companies
> > and the sent me 4 CFL bulbs free plus coupons for
> > $10 off on 6 more.
>
> > * * * * * If the AGW nutcases can't find something bad
> > to say about somebody they have nothing, a cat
> > got their tongue, they are lost for words, unwilling
> > to accept the fact that GreenHouse Gases cool the
> > atmosphere.
>
> The point remains that [delusional shit flushed]

You're a pathetic damaged left-turd-retard.

> [delusional shit flushed]

On Jan 9, 10:16*pm, Unum <non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> *wrote:
> >> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> * *wrote:
> >>>>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn....
>
> >>> * * >> * *As the World Burns
>
> >>> * * >> * *How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
> >>> lobbying
> >>> * * >> * *campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>
> >>> * * >> * *JEFF GOODELL
>
> >>> (crap cut)
>
> >>>www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>
> >>> * From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
> >>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
> >>> It includes:
> >>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
> >>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
> >>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>
> > * *>> *What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
> > mount one
> > * *>> *of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
> > progress on
> > * *>> *global warming?
> > * * * Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! * Note that Shell , BP,
> > and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
> > rent seeking- A McIntir
>
> Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
> brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
> mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
> of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Being ignorant of the term "rent seeking" is is forgivable, since
nobody knows everything, but since I pointed out what the energy
companies are doing, if you weren't either stupid or pig headedly
stubborn, you could have "googled the term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

" In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization
or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through
manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than
by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of
added wealth.

Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special
monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise
competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and
more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by
gaining ownership or control of land."
In other words, looking for government kickbacks, either concrete or
in-kind- A. McIntire

On Jan 9, 11:05*pm, Unum <non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> *wrote:
> >>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn....
>
> > * *>> *As the World Burns
>
> > * *>> *How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
> > lobbying
> > * *>> *campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>
> > * *>> *JEFF GOODELL
>
> > (crap cut)
>
> >www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>
> > *From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
> > list of companies that fund the CRU.
> > It includes:
> > British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
> > Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
> > Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>
> What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't mount one
> of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on
> global warming?

The "progress on global warming" slowed
when people realized they were being lie to.
Simple, fucktard.

so, what is your point?

On Jan 10, 5:19*am, Roving rabbit <rab...*dot.com> wrote:
> I M * good guy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:16:51 -0600, Unum <non...*yourbusiness.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> *wrote:
> >>>> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> * *wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
> >>>>> * * >> * *As the World Burns
> >>>>> * * >> * *How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
> >>>>> lobbying
> >>>>> * * >> * *campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
> >>>>> * * >> * *JEFF GOODELL
> >>>>> (crap cut)
> >>>>>www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
> >>>>> * From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
> >>>>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
> >>>>> It includes:
> >>>>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
> >>>>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
> >>>>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
> >>> * *>> *What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
> >>> mount one
> >>> * *>> *of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
> >>> progress on
> >>> * *>> *global warming?
> >>> * * * Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! * Note that Shell , BP,
> >>> and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
> >>> rent seeking- A McIntir
> >> Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
> >> brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
> >> mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
> >> of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.
>
> > * * * * * Post a reference, outhouse rumors don't count,
> > every energy company is promoting conservation, my
> > utility is owned by one of the biggest energy companies
> > and the sent me 4 CFL bulbs free plus coupons for
> > $10 off on 6 more.
>
> > * * * * * If the AGW nutcases can't find something bad
> > to say about somebody they have nothing, a cat
> > got their tongue, they are lost for words, unwilling
> > to accept the fact that GreenHouse Gases cool the
> > atmosphere.
>
> The point remains that the only safe way into the future is to replace
> our carbon emission economies by something sustainable [delusions flushed]

Click your heels three times and wish real hard,
you insipid piece of euro-trash.

On 1/10/2010 10:16 AM, yahoo.com">alanmc95210*yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:16 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
>>
>>>>> >> As the World Burns
>>
>>>>> >> How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
>>>>> lobbying
>>>>> >> campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>>
>>>>> >> JEFF GOODELL
>>
>>>>> (crap cut)
>>
>>>>> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>>
>>>>> From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
>>>>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
>>>>> It includes:
>>>>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
>>>>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
>>>>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>>
>>> >> What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
>>> mount one
>>> >> of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
>>> progress on
>>> >> global warming?
>>> Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! Note that Shell , BP,
>>> and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
>>> rent seeking- A McIntir
>>
>> Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
>> brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
>> mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
>> of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Being ignorant of the term "rent seeking" is is forgivable, since
> nobody knows everything, but since I pointed out what the energy
> companies are doing, if you weren't either stupid or pig headedly
> stubborn, you could have "googled the term:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
>
> " In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization
> or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through
> manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than
> by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of
> added wealth.
>
> Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special
> monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise
> competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and
> more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by
> gaining ownership or control of land."
> In other words, looking for government kickbacks, either concrete or
> in-kind- A. McIntire

Still not at all clear what you are trying to get at, but here is
actual data for you on money the big oil companies are spending on
lobbying;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...e=2010&ind=E01

They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million
already in the 2010 cycle.

Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk scientists;
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campai.../exxon-secrets

And extensive astroturfing (look it up in the dictionary);
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...l-or-astroturf

On Jan 10, 2:29*pm, Unum <non...*yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> On 1/10/2010 10:16 AM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:16 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> *wrote:
> >> On 1/9/2010 10:42 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 9, 8:05 pm, Unum<non...*yourbusiness.com> * *wrote:
> >>>> On 1/9/2010 4:39 PM, alanmc95...*yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 9, 1:27 pm, Harry Hope<riv...*ix.netcom.com> * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_world_burn...
>
> >>>>> * * *>> * * *As the World Burns
>
> >>>>> * * *>> * * *How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive
> >>>>> lobbying
> >>>>> * * *>> * * *campaigns in history to block progress on global warming
>
> >>>>> * * *>> * * *JEFF GOODELL
>
> >>>>> (crap cut)
>
> >>>>>www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>
> >>>>> * *From the Climate Research Unit's own web site you will find a partial
> >>>>> list of companies that fund the CRU.
> >>>>> It includes:
> >>>>> British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
> >>>>> Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
> >>>>> Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
>
> >>> * * >> * *What is your point? Are you claiming Big Oil and Big Coal didn't
> >>> mount one
> >>> * * >> * *of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block
> >>> progress on
> >>> * * >> * *global warming?
> >>> * * * *Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm claiming! * Note that Shell , BP,
> >>> and EXXON have donated PLENTY to AGW groups- probably as an effort in
> >>> rent seeking- A McIntir
>
> >> Lol, I don't know what 'rent seeking' is but this is one of the most
> >> brainless things I've seen you say. Big Dirty Energy has so obviously
> >> mounted a huge aggressive lobbying campaign. You claim that if a couple
> >> of members of the club gave some money to CRU then it didn't happen.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > * * Being ignorant of the term "rent seeking" is *is forgivable, *since
> > nobody knows everything, but since I pointed out what the energy
> > companies are doing, if you weren't either stupid or pig headedly
> > stubborn, you could have "googled the term:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
>
> > " In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization
> > or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through
> > manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than
> > by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of
> > added wealth.
>
> > Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special
> > monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise
> > competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and
> > more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by
> > gaining ownership or control of land."
> > * In other words, *looking for government kickbacks, either concrete or
> > in-kind- A. McIntire
>
> Still not at all clear what you are trying to get at, [???]

You're dumber than most lib-turd-retards.

"I M * good guy" <I_m*good.guy> wrote in message
news:k0hjk5dlkurb40v2ablkf4aeljo80i9eek*4ax.com...
......
> Oil will all but be gone in a hundred years
> or so, and hopefully alternate energy electric
> will have replaced coal and natural gas as fuel
> in power plants.

Alternatives like ?

>
> Solar PV will become a significant fraction
> of the grids before long, and solar steam electric
> is perfect to install on farms in California and
> other sun belt locations where water is readily
> available, not in the desert where water is in
> short supply.

That's what we are doing here in California.
That is, unless the fossil fuel guys get their way.
If they do, then our beautiful shores will be lined with oil rigs and gas
production platforms.

By the way, solar thermal (what you call "solar steam electric") does not
need much water at all.
It's most efficient with liquid salt. And it works great in the desert.

Rob

On Jan 11, 3:10*am, "Rob Dekker" <r...*verific.com> wrote:
> "I M * good guy" <I...*good.guy> wrote in messagenews:k0hjk5dlkurb40v2ablkf4aeljo80i9eek*4ax .com...
> .....
>
> > * * * *Oil will all but be gone in a hundred years
> > or so, and hopefully alternate energy electric
> > will have replaced coal and natural gas as fuel
> > in power plants.
>
• ROTFLMAO
Oil is being constantly created in the biosphere.
Russia, Siberia, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, and
Brazil all have established unlimited reserves.
USA would have them too, if they drilled
deeper in some of those old capped wells


> > * * * *Solar PV will become a significant fraction
> > of the grids before long, and solar steam electric
> > is perfect to install on farms in California and
> > other sun belt locations where water is readily
> > available, not in the desert where water is in
> > short supply.

• That is less than 30 percent of the country and
the greenies are already decrying the damage
to the ecology of the desert.

> That's what we are doing here in California.
> That is, unless the fossil fuel guys get their way.
> If they do, then our beautiful shores will be lined with oil rigs and gas
> production platforms.

• The big thermal project in California was shut
down last month because it was dangerously
close to a fault. It would be nice if some of that
volcanic water could be used for agriculture. It
has lots of fertilizer (CO2, NO2)in it.

• California has permitted more development
than it has water and power resources. Part
of the problen is caused by too much concrete
and tar diverting rainwater to storm sewers
istead of seeping into the water table.

—*—
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena