An inconvenient Truth (OT)

I would assume it is meant for Laymen. If you are an expert, then of course you would see it as simple.

YOU'RE busted . I found the page you quoted.

"Mike Hunter" wrote in message news:9badnZIDAMTtNj snipped-for-privacy@ptd.net...

I did two years in the Navy, so I guess I was a sailor. The Westerly wind was explained on one of those pages I posted.

You keep going back to the same old arguement, which does not apply.Do some research on the N.A.S. and you will see that they serve Pro Bono. In ohter words, they volunteer their time. They get no funding from the goverment for their "projects" It is not a scientific controversy because the vast majority of scientist know it is real and think it is man caused.

Soon to be 6 months a year (:-)

Their TV programs often coincide with a their magazine articles.

My sister-in-law was visiting from England, and I took her and my wife on a tour through the nearby Santa Cruz mountains when we has an hour or so to kill. We went down one road and hit a barricade after about a mile or two.I turned around and headed back, and saw that my side of the road had no support under the tarmack - it was washed away. I shifted to the British side of the road and the girls didn't notice. It seems that they were looking at a house on the hillside that had about 1/3 of it unsupported as the ground was washed away.

Rain is bad in the mountains!

Karl

Karl Grumpy AuC> I give up.

Alex,

Very few scientists get a regular monthly salary, mostly those teaching at universities. Those working independently, or in research institutes, have to compete for a share of the available grant money in order to fund their research (and pay their bills). Since "climate change" is a sexy topic right now, savvy scientists will spin their grant applications to make their proposed research appear applicable to some facet of climate change theory.

Even salaried and tenured professors at universities are subject to the "publish or perish" syndrome. If one has to get a paper out, and the current scientific orthodoxy favors climate change, then the easy path to take is to write a paper that supports the orthodoxy. It's preaching to the choir.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just social inertia in the scientific community. It's easier for a scientist seeking funding to go with the flow than to challenge the orthodoxy. Climate change is the Establishment position in the scientific community, and no scientist is putting his career at risk if he advocates on behalf of the orthodoxy.

So it's not too surprising that many of those scientists who DO oppose the orthodoxy are funded by oil companies; they represent one of the only funding sources at present for those voices in the wilderness.

The climate change fad will eventually play itself out, just as the "new ice age" fad of the '50 and '60s did.

Gord Richmond

There is, it depend on how much changing undersea volcanic activity warms the Pacific ocean. 70% of all the earths volcanoes are under the earths oceans and there activities vary with the movement of the tectonic plates. The Hawaii islands are a vivid example of volcanic and tectonic plate movement, over million of years. At some point in time the first in the island chain will disappear under the India continent as a result of induction.

mike hunt

I just wonder if there is enough vegetable oil around to supply the need.. We use 9 million barrels of gasoline per day in the U.S. If we tilled the entire country I don't think we could grow that many soy beans

How did you manage only two years, was it the American Navy?

mike hunt

That is assumed and redundant to the article.

mike hunt

Only if one disregards all of the other factors and that is what the environuts are doing, and that is the point..

mike hunt

On another group, they have reached several hundred messages and still not resolved it - I haven't said anything for several days on that or this. I think that 200 messages when there is no agreement in sight should be a limit in such cases.

Let's give it a go.

Karl

reichsrundfunk wrote:

Yes, in the days before Vietnam you could join the navy for two years active duty. When Vietnam came along, potential draftees were looking at two years of possible ground combat, and many decided two years of Navy would be better. I don't know if it was the Army or the Navy that pushed for a change, but is soon changed to four years for the Navy.

All well and good with the exception that they are not applying for grant money and are not publishing a paper in their name. They are doing an unbiased report, as a committee, for the government, appointed by a Republican.

I just wonder if there is enough vegetable oil around to supply the need.. We use 9 million barrels of gasoline per day in the U.S. If we tilled the entire country I don't think we could grow that many soy beans