Will Global Warming Affect Our Fishing?

I'll leave it to more smarter, knowledgeable folks to say whether
Gore is right. I
Regards,
Robert L Bass

From the article at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/T...&comments=true

"Last week, a UK judge ruled that "An Inconvenient Truth" - Al Gore's
Oscar winning documentary - was packed with so many errors and
exaggerations that it can only be shown in schools if it is
accompanied with guidance notes that will allow teachers to balance
Gore's "one-sided" analysis.

In the ruling, Justice Michael Burton of the High Court in London
listed nine specific instances where Gore's claims were wrong and were
presented in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

Another "denier crackpot" heard from:

Singer, who was born in Vienna in 1924, was a pioneer in the
development of rocket and satellite technology and holds a Ph.D. in
physics from Princeton. Now president of the Science & Environmental
Policy Project research group (sepp.org), his latest book (with Dennis
Avery) is "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/B...th_fred_singer

Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

Ronnie wrote:
Another "denier crackpot" heard from:

Singer, who was born in Vienna in 1924, ...

I'm starting to notice a trend in your crackpots Ronnie,
Singer is at least 82 and William Gray is 78. Senility
perhaps ? LOL !

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Oct 23, 11:09 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Ronnie wrote:
Another "denier crackpot" heard from:

Singer, who was born in Vienna in 1924, ...

I'm starting to notice a trend in your crackpots Ronnie,
Singer is at least 82 and William Gray is 78. Senility
perhaps ? LOL !

--
Ken Fortenberry

The Oregon Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/), was sponsored by
Dr. Frederick Seitz, former past president of the National Academy of
Sciences, It has over 17,000 independently verified signatures from
scientists. It reads, in part:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or
will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover,
there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant
and animal environments of the Earth."

I am sure you can discredit all 17,000 of them by calling them names.
BTW - how old are you?

Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

Ronnie wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Ronnie wrote:
Another "denier crackpot" heard from:
Singer, who was born in Vienna in 1924, ...
I'm starting to notice a trend in your crackpots Ronnie,
Singer is at least 82 and William Gray is 78. Senility
perhaps ? LOL !

The Oregon Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/), was sponsored by
Dr. Frederick Seitz, former past president of the National Academy of
Sciences, It has over 17,000 independently verified signatures from
scientists.
snip
I am sure you can discredit all 17,000 of them by calling them names.
BTW - how old are you?

By signing that petition they have discredited themselves and I
never had to lift a finger. And there's not as many "scientists"
as they claim. Here's what _Scientific American_ had to say in 2005:

“Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories
claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26
we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still
agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher,
two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an
informal evaluation."

That's one, count 'em *one*, climate scientist out of 30 signatories
plus two out of thirty with relevant expertise who still agree.
Quite an underwhelming number when the facts are known.

I'll be 51 next month, born November 25, 1956 in Landstuhl, Germany.
Why ? Do you want to send me a birthday card ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

By signing that petition they have discredited themselves

What an eloquent refutation of their opinion - why, I bet they even
listen to Rush Limbaugh.

"Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories

30 surveyed out of 1,400 - wow!

Why ? Do you want to send me a birthday card ? ;-)

Based on your denigration of people because of their age, I just
wondered how old you were.

Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

Ronnie wrote:
30 surveyed out of 1,400 - wow!

If chosen at random, and I trust _Scientific American_ to
have chosen a random sample, that sample size is sufficient.

The "petition" is being recirculated again after seven years.
I wonder how many "scientists" will sign on this time around.

Based on your denigration of people because of their age, I just
wondered how old you were.

I didn't denigrate anyone because of their age. I denigrated
the two old guys you trotted out because they promote a crackpot
conspiracy theory and I wondered aloud if it might not be due to
their senility.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Oct 23, 12:23 pm, Ronnie wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:09 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Ronnie wrote:
Another "denier crackpot" heard from:

Singer, who was born in Vienna in 1924, ...

I'm starting to notice a trend in your crackpots Ronnie,
Singer is at least 82 and William Gray is 78. Senility
perhaps ? LOL !

--
Ken Fortenberry

The Oregon Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/), was sponsored by
Dr. Frederick Seitz, former past president of the National Academy of
Sciences, It has over 17,000 independently verified signatures from
scientists. It reads, in part:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or
will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover,
there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant
and animal environments of the Earth."

I am sure you can discredit all 17,000 of them by calling them names.
BTW - how old are you?

Ronnie



I saw tidbits of that report posted here and there... and discussed on
the radio.
Its just not profitable for the Clintons and the Gores to let that
kind of report out... shhhhh...... 17,000 scientists..... well did
they make a sci-fi movie about the facts of our planet? no way! If it
isn't in hollywood - it cant be real.

Our "Pal" Al needs to cover the cost of his private jets, and movie
bombs and books and what not. We also aren't allowed to post bad facts
about Mr. Gore... because he did after all, invent the internet.
What would happen to poor ol' Al Gore if everyone realized that our
planet has been cycling temperatures for millions and millions of
years? What if everyone knew that global warming and cooling were just
natural things that happen to our planet? What if everyone knew that
the was a warming trend something like 1200 years ago before cars,
trucks and airplanes? What if everyone knew that our current president
had a home that was something like 500 % more eco friendly than Al's?
It seems old Al zips back and forth nation wide on a private jet
(costing approximately $50,000 just to get in the air... and I dont
know how many tons of fuel they carry), fuels his home with propane (a
natural gas), drives around in limos and SUVs... While W has a home
that uses NO fuel for heating or cooling... runs on some sort of
natural water system. Uses solar energy and what not. I'm not saying
one fella is better than the other, it just seems that the one yelling
at us to be more eco friendly... should be a little more conservative
with how he burns up fuel.

Al, of course buys offsets (WHY the HELL didn't I think of running
this scam first??!?!) Just to set the record straight.... offsets =
Hilary campaign funds as far as I can tell.
There is no inelligent way that someone could think that just paying
someone some cash cancels out the fact that you just threw a million
tons of pollutants into the air. I personally see a HUGE problem with
pollutants. If old Al wanted to battle polution I might think he was
getting somewhere and had a big monster to tackle. But the whole
warming issue...... I just don't see it.
I hate to see our Maine waters tainted with mercury, and Acid rain.
But even still, he's in the wrong place. The US is one of, if not THE
cleanest country in the world. Seems strange, but true. It looks to
me, from what i have read and heard that the third world countries
like Kenya, India, and what not are the heaviest polluters in the
world. Because they run coal power plants, and have few if any eco
laws in place (out of a matter of priority). Their people are starving
to death in the streets by the thousands..... buying an electric car
just doesn't top the to do list.

Eco freindliness looks like it is directly linked to economy and
technology. America is top of the line for those... so heres my
solution. Al can go to india, where people are struggling to find this
weeks meal, and help them clean up their act. He can take his millions
(if not billions) in cash he got from all those "offsets" and buy food
programs, and build a secure nuclear power facility.... why not set up
indias own internet? Heck he can probably invent some sort of food
replicator too.

Once he gets there and starts working with people on the street
instead of hollywood wingnuts, he will be too busy to steal everyones
money.

Remeber... in the 70's the SAME PEOPLE were screaming that we were
going to have another ice age.

On Oct 23, 8:18 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Ronnie wrote:
30 surveyed out of 1,400 - wow!

If chosen at random, and I trust _Scientific American_ to
have chosen a random sample, that sample size is sufficient.

Where does it say at random? Trust but verify!


The "petition" is being recirculated again after seven years.
I wonder how many "scientists" will sign on this time around.


Me too - got any facts about how many are signing it?

Based on your denigration of people because of their age, I just
wondered how old you were.

I didn't denigrate anyone because of their age. I denigrated
the two old guys you trotted out because they promote a crackpot
conspiracy theory and I wondered aloud if it might not be due to
their senility.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I call that denigrating people because of their age. Call it what you
like.

Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

Ronnie wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Ronnie wrote:
Based on your denigration of people because of their age, I just
wondered how old you were.
I didn't denigrate anyone because of their age. I denigrated
the two old guys you trotted out because they promote a crackpot
conspiracy theory and I wondered aloud if it might not be due to
their senility.

I call that denigrating people because of their age.

That's just what I'd expect from you Ronnie.

--
Ken Fortenberry