To stop the LARGEST cause of pollution you have to stop nature. Humans are miniscule creatures in the scheme of things.

Thanks
David

__________________
_____________________________________________

2000 Honda Accord V6 137k miles

1972 300SEL 4.5 98k miles

_____________________________________________

I’m talking about campaign financing. It seems the most tried road to the White House. Rich with corruption. But will quickly add that the process of someone getting encouragement by one of the major parties is unknown to me. I did a little poking around but didn’t find anything of substance. Wish I had more time as it is an interesting topic. Anyone have info on this?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

It seems like all political parties are not keen on re-running the guy who lost the previous election.

__________________
MB-less

Lots of people made these predictions…in 1920, 1930, 1950, 1970, 1990, etc.
The historical record doesn't support this.
See here:
http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/08/eu-environmentalism-score-another-one.html
Yes, the 2000 election and the 2004 elections were critical for the subsequent GWOT, the UN, taxes, SS, gay marriage, the SCOTUS etc., and thank goodness they went the way they did. I am one happy camper.
The Dems did not run Gore in 2004 for one big reason. I think it was pretty obvious what the Dem strategy was in 2004 that involved a brief flirtation with Wesley Clark and to then nominate Kerry. We were at war, and the Dems desperately needed a "war" candidate that could straddle both sides of the fence and they found the PERFECT guy. I don't need to remind you HOW MUCH THE DEMS THOUGHT THEY HAD THIS IN THE BAG on Nov.4. Another reason was he did not graciously concede defeat quickly enough in 2000. The country saw him in a most desperate unflattering light, nearing a complete mental breakdown on national television. A smiling, upbeat, quick, gracious concession, "good for America, let's get to work", would have done wonders for his political longevity. Gore gave us the pleasure of not only beating him once but again and again after each and every expanding recount request.

glenmore

Ohhhh, he wanted it all right. He simply did not have the support of his party.

The Dems decided to run with something that their entire current generation party is built on.."Vietnam".

glenmore

Dean slipped up is all. He was the leader. Kerry was just about broke. I think this is when he got a refinance or a loan from his wife. Dean raised a lot of money early from non-traditional DNC sources. The traditional DNC made no bones about preferring someone other than Dean. They waited patiently and then they received the gift of the "scream". Still a horse race on who doesn't screw up under the immense pressure. And so what if it is also a money race? More supporters=more voters=more donations=competitive candidate. What's wrong with that? Or maybe you are against one person with an inordinate amount of money exerting an inodinate amount of influence? You mean like George Soros?


glenmore

Well maybe we are one of the little more destructive creatures, but hey!, we invented pizza, we're entitled!

The temperature in space is roughly absolute zero. If you are one of the outlying planets from the sun, it's probably absolute zero all the time and if you are close in like Mercury, you will alternately freeze and bake. And then you have planet earth, for BILLIONS of years, in a perfect spot where it is not too hot and not too cold, 93 MILLION miles from the sun, a seething sphere of hyrogen and helium, 27 MILLION degrees F in temperature and a MILLION times larger in volume than the earth.

So human activity over the past couple HUNDRED years has somehow trumped old sol?


glenmore

And there have never before in the history of our planet been temperature fluctuations? HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Thanks
David

__________________
_____________________________________________

2000 Honda Accord V6 137k miles

1972 300SEL 4.5 98k miles

_____________________________________________

You missed the point.

The DNC, in my opinion, can't exert much influence on who the eventual candidate will be other than to assist in raising money. Dean raised all the money on his own, and would have secured the nomination if he didn't screw up. The influence of the DNC, and their desire to have an alternate candidate, would not have mattered.

Once Kerry won in Iowa, he was able to gather momentum and money. Again, the DNC would have little influence in the outcome, if it decided that it preferred John Edwards, for example.

This must be the topic that people tend to be most narrow-minded on. I don't mean you specifically, but in general. It's always good to look at all the data, then draw your conclusion. While this data seems true, i.e. the number of hurricanes hasn't changed drastically, according to other data the strength of these hurricanes appears to be on the rise, corresponding to the increasing ocean temperatures. While human-caused global warming is a controversial issue, there is some circumstantial evidence to support the theory that the unusually rapid warming in the last 100 years is caused by human-emitted CO2. All I'm saying is, don't jump to conclusions.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I don't think humans have emitted near the amount of pollutants into the atmosphere as one volcanic eruption. In fact I think there is scientific data to prove it but I don't know where to find it now and it's not worth the amount of time of my part.

Thanks
David

__________________
_____________________________________________

2000 Honda Accord V6 137k miles

1972 300SEL 4.5 98k miles

_____________________________________________

Since you seem to advocate looking at all the data, may I once again direct you attention to the website junkscience

It's very data heavy and having a background in science, math and statistics would be a plus in understanding the material.

I doubt you will though, and I patiently await the explanation from you as to how stupid I am/the website is/or George Bush is.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I have a degree in science, but you don't need it to understand global warming. All that is needed is an open mind and a willingness to read. I've been very busy the last few days and I don't have time right now to do lots of reading, but I did look at your junkscience website briefly and I read the first link from the top about global warming.
http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2005/09/01/headline_news/news03.txt
It's nothing new to me, but maybe it's new to you. You might want to read it.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

All that article stated was that they confirmed global warming is occuring, NOT THE CAUSE.

As the article also stated, global warming is a natural occurence, which happened before.

Then you would realize that there are inherent problems in getting the correct measurement of the global mean temperature to begin with. In other words, what is our starting point? Secondly, since you can't measure the GMT accuratly how do you know how much change has been made by anthropomorphic causes? This is also unable to be accuratly measured, even less so than the GMT. In other words you can't figure out what, actually, is going on due to the "noise" of shifting temps. In science we would call this a theory, since it hasn't been proven by factual evidence.

Do you want to spend 1/2 the GNP of the WORLD in order to theoretically drop the GMT 0.0000004 degrees over the next 50 years? If not, then I guess it's a good thing Bushy listened to his scientists and decided not to sign. Now, Algore was all for it - but then what can you say about the guy who invented the internet?

As to the link you submitted from the junkscience page, it was the 12th from the top when I looked... Here's the precursor to all the stories he has listed:

"Contemporary science coverage is very mixed, ranging from the good to the bad and on to the very ugly. Some of the items listed in this column are good, some junk, some introduce new perspectives on old claims or ideas and some are included solely for their general news value.

"Periodically, the question arises as to how the novice can identify which of the myriad items featured here each week belong to which category. I could launch into a monologue on why relative risks < 3.0 don't distract me from my coffee and why small sample studies are less than exciting, I could point out that massive risk and miraculous cures are exceedingly rare and I could probably wax poetic on the value of skepticism. Better yet, I could point the novice to a valuable resource in the methodology of identifying junk science and protecting themselves there from, which is what I think I'll do: Click for more about Steve Milloy's book Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams. -- Ed.

As a guy who has a degree in science also I have a real issue with your first sentence. When I work with explosives and radioactive material I want a whole lot more than an open mind and willingness to read. These help but being able to calculate hazards and rely on good empirical data are lifesavers. When it comes to my life and to a lesser extent the money I earn I want factual data backed up with proven evidence. For human caused global warming that just doesn't exist.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone