[Peace-discuss] Another "conspiracy theorist, " Global Warming variety.

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chuck Minne
To: ouroboros rex ; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Another "conspiracy theorist, " Global Warming 
variety.


Thanks for the link and its very interesting comments. I am completely 
unschooled in climate science (so at least on this subject we are on equal 
footing,)


       Odd assumption, but pretty close.


 and I just read the article in Discover and thought it was interesting.

I am not qualified to attack or defend Sevnsmark's work. With that said, I 
would point out that he said, "It was only over a short period of time, 
because the data were covering just seven years or something like that. So 
it was almost nothing, but it was a nice correlation." So I think he might 
agree with the criticism about a trend being lacking, but I am really in no 
position to even guess at that.

The other point I would make, again with no personal qualification, is that 
the link also says, "Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify 
the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for 
cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As 
for this latter issue, the jury is still out."


       Well, sure.  It's the way it's swept the ranks of denialists as their 
latest excuse that's the rub.


You might consider sending your post to Discover as a letter to the editor 
and see if you can get a response. That would be very interesting. Others 
may do something similar and I will be on the watch for that. Thanks again 
for the link; I found the comments as interesting as the article.

P.S Just between you and me, your comments about altimeters are so 
unrealistic that they are a joke.


        Well, I understand that you think so.  But according to your own 
statements, the altimeter woud have had to be reset to be any good.  And 
everywhere I look, we find that their error range if not readjusted is quite 
large.  Add to that a ground approach to within ground-effect proximity, at 
over 500mph, and a 100 foot discrepancy (about .1 on the altimeter setting) 
is not much to go on in the face of overwhelming proof.  Can't help it, 
that's just the way things shake out.


 If you spent ten minutes in a cockpit you would know what I mean.


        Perhaps.  I have had an Aero Ed class, and spent an hour flying, but 
that was decades ago.  =)


 However, I understand that you now attack me on reflex, shooting in all 
directions with the hope something will hit.


       Well, this is another woowooism, but whatever.  I get accused of the 
same things whether I correct the misstatements of moon hoaxers, 
creationists, 911 conspirowacks, or CROWies.  They can't prove a thing, 
their stuff is full of gaping holes, but their troubles with their own 
arguments are then supposed to be someone else's fault.  ;)


My advice would be to stick with cosmic rays, I don't know squat about them.

All that being said, I do think the link above was really good. And I also 
think that you and I have subjected this list to enough crap, and that best 
way to end that if for me to unsubscribe, for I recognize my share of that 
responsibility.


      Why not simply stop posting binaries and 9/11 spam to a peace list?

      Anyway, my advice would be to stay on, I can filter you from here if 
we've firmly decided none of this is doing any good.  I would prefer to 
still see your other remarks, but I can live with it.

      "Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all 
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or 
her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our 
opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, 
without background, without understanding, it's nothing."  --  Harlan 
Ellison