nklr japaneese tow cycle

[revmaaatin]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

> > > > > Before you take this "news story" as gospel, do some research on

the publisher, The Heartland Institute. Then look into the credentials of the so-called experts who comprise the membership of the ICSC.

> > Anyone who thinks that the "Global Warming? What Global Warming?"

movement isn't being coordinated by big-business interests, check your sources.

> > JT

Hello JT, You have peaked my interest, and maybe I'm a little dense this evening...Could you elaborate just a little bit more? From your post, it is difficult (for me) to discern your point #1. Do you believe Heartland Institute a 'fraud'? And the reference to the credentials of the ICSC? It looks to me like those initials are different than the initials of the organization posted earlier. The second point is a little more 'clear'. You pose an interesting point about credentials: IRT to credentials--I have spent my entire life in continuing ed-- with the ultimate hope of living through the next crisis--perhaps a nuclear, biological, chemical catastrophe to crashing/escaping a burning ship or aircraft at sea. (The worst 'training' I ever received was POW/SERE training--but that is for another day--I knew at the end--you never, ever wanted to be taken as a POW.) I have spent my youth amassing a huge resume of military, malicious, practical, impractical, 'secure' and insecure (seminary) schooling-- shrug--and what have I learned? How little I actually know. smile. They tell me that is why they allowed me to graduate! But to augment that lack of knowledge, (desperate as it may seem) that is why I read the DSN650 list--so much to learn from a diversified readership. It is the search for knowledge from folks like Drs., scientist, farmers, an occasional hoodlum/anarchist (at least in their minds/computer--and you know who you are!) plus the fairy tale assortment of sand rats, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. Did I mention our lawyer friends also? Somebody better know how to get us out of jail.... Where else could you find a better or more diverse group of friends? Other than the MARINES! (Sorry-- shameless plug). Perhaps the point in all this, is that not all education is useful, and not all smart people have a paper degree-- but we all know that. shrug. And now, for the sake of discussion-smile--a short story IRT credentials: As far as credentials, we remember Paul Revere for a significant event involving horses, the dark, the sea, and a couple of lanterns. However, Paul Revere was not an expert 'horseman', although I imagine he rode a horse, 'expertly' that night. Paul Revere was a silversmith--but that is not how we remember his skill set. shrug. Now that is all said, I would (initially) give more credibility to those that have spent the time to educate themselves, however, we all know a few village idiots that have paper degrees without the wherewithal to execute the knowledge in a useful manner (yes! My own self-disclosure--at times). It is also good to know the money trail-- who is sponsoring the 'experts' in their testimony? Is it biased to truth, or is it biased to who pays the most? cough. CAUTION: Now, so that this contains some KLR CONTENT; I did not ride my bike today. smile. But if I did, 24 hours prior, I would have preheated the crankcase with a 100w rough service light bulb in a bell shaped reflector and plugged in the battery tender. shrug. revmaaatin. cold and always curious in the Dakotas "When the revolution came, do you suppose they checked Paul Revere's credentials to ride a horse?" the rev.

[revmaaatin]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Criswell wrote:

> > JT as one who has traveled a bit, I have been to places where they > have glaciers (New Zealand, Alaska, Switzerland and Chili). Yes

the

> glaciers are retreating in all those places but have been doing so > for the last couple 100 years. Whether man is the cause .... don't > know .... or if this is just one of the earth's natural cycles or

a

> sun cycle???? I (and Al Gore) am not qualified to say. Pouring of

all

> this concrete (which radiates heat) or big Suburbans creating

warmth

> (and smog) or cows creating methane gas by farting might affect

the

> balance. Don't know. But I do know there were once tropical plants

in

> what is now Antarctica, and west Texas around Guadalupe National

Park

> is one of the best places in the world to get fossils from an

ancient

> sea bed that was once there. Or the Great Lakes were created by > glaciers. The earth is constantly changing and always has. O'Bama

or

> Hillary or Al won't have much effect on it in my opinion. I go to > Corpus Christi quite often to monitor sea level. So far, so good.

I

> will keep you posted. > > Criswell

Hi Criswell, I envy your travel experience. Just to add ice to the fire: I read (sorry, I don't have the source--nuts) recently that the Antarctica polar ice cap is growing larger during this global warming, and, it is at an all time high for size/sq/mi in the time that it has been measured. Anybody else read that? Is this true? And how would one substantiate something like that as being true? revmaaatin.

[Mike Frey]

Last month, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Polar Research Group indicated the southern hemisphere's sea ice area reached 16.17 million square kilometers, narrowly breaking the old record of 16.03 million square kilometers. The record data goes back to 1979. ----- Original Message -- From: revmaaatin To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:07 PM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Re: NKLR metaphysics, the future, oil, and energy Just to add ice to the fire: I read (sorry, I don't have the source--nuts) recently that the Antarctica polar ice cap is growing larger during this global warming, and, it is at an all time high for size/sq/mi in the time that it has been measured. Anybody else read that? Is this true? And how would one substantiate something like that as being true? revmaaatin.

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "revmaaatin" wrote:

> --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Anyone who thinks that the "Global Warming? What Global Warming?" > movement isn't being coordinated by big-business interests, check > your sources. > > You have peaked my interest, and maybe I'm a little dense this > evening...Could you elaborate just a little bit more? From your > post, it is difficult (for me) to discern your point #1. Do you > believe Heartland Institute a 'fraud'? And the reference to the > credentials of the ICSC? It looks to me like those initials are > different than the initials of the organization posted earlier.

The Heartland Institute is basically the smokestack industry equivalent of The Tobacco Institute. You know, the guys who said that smoking was good for you and didn't cause cancer? The ones where when internal memos were subpoena'ed the tobacco executives knew they were lying, it turns out? Beware of industry groups attempting to influence public policy with "junk science". You know it's junk science if the only place the "study" is published is on their web site. As for qualifications, the main qualification that counts is whether a) the experimental design is valid, and b) the experiment is reproducible. The former is typically validated via publication in a major journal in the field in question (whether cancer research or climate studies), the latter is typically validated over a matter of time via successive studies arriving at the same conclusions given a particular experimental design. Journals will publish almost anything if it passes a basic laugh test -- see, e.g., the Pons/Fleischman "cold fusion" study where everybody was dubious but couldn't immediately poke a hole in the experimental design so it was published. Journals love being leading-edge, but the studies saying tobacco was good for you never managed to pass even a basic laugh test (i.e. did not have a valid experimental design). Similarly, the studies saying there's no global warming appear only on the website of places like The Heartland Institute, because they similarly do not qualify as science due to lack of valid experimental design. (And if you want to know what constitutes valid experimental design, I suggest you take Research Methods 501 in graduate school, there are so many ways to screw up experimental design, some deliberate, that it takes a whole freakin' course in grad school to cover even a small percentage of them). The few "there is no global warming" studies that *have* been published in peer-reviewed journals have not thus far been reproducible by anybody other than their authors or their authors' cronies (i.e. other people in the pay of industry groups) and thus do not (yet) qualify as science. In the case of CO2, we know it's a greenhouse gas. You pump CO2 into a glass globe and expose it to the sun, it gets hotter at the bottom of the globe than a glass globe with, say, nitrogen. This is scientifically provable and has been proven via approximately 150 years of research and literally thousands of studies. You can do the experiment yourself using little CO2 cartridges, a wooden box, a thermometer, and a glass top. We can also estimate the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere via human activity over the past 100 years or so via looking at tax records for electrical generation plants, the amount of petroleum extracted from the ground, coal dug up, etc. You do the estimate, and it's a big heaping amount of CO2. Then you can do experiments with CO2/nitrogen mixes and see just how big the greenhouse effect is with given concentrations, and get a pretty good estimate of how much this is eventually going to warm up the planet. It's all simple science in the end, 150 years worth of scientific studies of the greenhouse effects of CO2. Nobody ever thought about human activity being a big deal though because the atmosphere is so big and until recently nobody ever put together the sheer scale of human activity over the past 100 years to And yes, the CO2 level has been higher in the past. All the CO2 in the ground was once in the air, after all. And fig trees once grew in Alaska. The question is not whether it's "natural" to re-transfer this CO2 from the ground back into the air. The question is whether the economic consequences of transferring this CO2 from the ground back into the air outweigh the economic consequences of reducing CO2 emissions, which is a complicated question which depends on a variety of factors -- how fast will the sea level rise, what are going to be the climate effects insofar as rainfall and etc., and so on. I don't pretend to understand all the various models that the scientists are using to predict these things, I'm going to rely on the scientists to do science. I (who design computers for a living) wouldn't tell a heart surgeon how to do open heart surgery, any more than I'd let the heart surgeon tell me how to design computers, and I'm not going to tell a climate scientist how to do climate science. There is a scientific process, it works, we have about 400 years of experience with the scientific process proving that it works, and buying junk science with millions of dollars of ExxonMobil money is *not* part of that process.

[Greg May]

Hi Mike and Rev, I've read various opinions on global warming / next iceage and while no expert I can tell you that in here I Nova Scotia just before midnight it's -22C and still likely to drop a little. The high for today that i saw at under a beautiful blue sky was -9C. While I realize that this has virtially nothing to do with our long term climate I will say that it is very very rarely this cold anytime before January here and certainly not as consistantly as it has been and according to the long term weather report it's not going to warm up a whole lot for most of the week, at least the last time I looked. Anyway have a great and hopefully warmer week...and if anyone has a little global warming to spare please send it my way....... Greg Mike Frey wrote: Last month, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Polar Research Group indicated the southern hemisphere's sea ice area reached 16.17 million square kilometers, narrowly breaking the old record of 16.03 million square kilometers. The record data goes back to 1979. ----- Original Message -- From: revmaaatin To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:07 PM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Re: NKLR metaphysics, the future, oil, and energy Just to add ice to the fire: I read (sorry, I don't have the source--nuts) recently that the Antarctica polar ice cap is growing larger during this global warming, and, it is at an all time high for size/sq/mi in the time that it has been measured. Anybody else read that? Is this true? And how would one substantiate something like that as being true? revmaaatin. --------------------------------- Instant message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[revmaaatin]

TOP POSTED Thanks Eric- Do you write that from memory? Wow. That helps tie some things together. As always, I enjoy your post. revmaaatin.

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "E.L. Green" wrote: > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "revmaaatin" wrote: > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > Anyone who thinks that the "Global Warming? What Global Warming?" > > movement isn't being coordinated by big-business interests, check > > your sources. > > > > You have peaked my interest, and maybe I'm a little dense this > > evening...Could you elaborate just a little bit more? From your > > post, it is difficult (for me) to discern your point #1. Do you > > believe Heartland Institute a 'fraud'? And the reference to the > > credentials of the ICSC? It looks to me like those initials are > > different than the initials of the organization posted earlier. > > The Heartland Institute is basically the smokestack industry equivalent of The Tobacco > Institute. You know, the guys who said that smoking was good for you and didn't cause > cancer? The ones where when internal memos were subpoena'ed the tobacco executives > knew they were lying, it turns out? Beware of industry groups attempting to influence > public policy with "junk science". You know it's junk science if the only place the "study" is > published is on their web site. > > As for qualifications, the main qualification that counts is whether a) the experimental > design is valid, and b) the experiment is reproducible. The former is typically validated via > publication in a major journal in the field in question (whether cancer research or climate > studies), the latter is typically validated over a matter of time via successive studies > arriving at the same conclusions given a particular experimental design. Journals will > publish almost anything if it passes a basic laugh test -- see, e.g., the Pons/Fleischman > "cold fusion" study where everybody was dubious but couldn't immediately poke a hole in > the experimental design so it was published. Journals love being leading-edge, but the > studies saying tobacco was good for you never managed to pass even a basic laugh test > (i.e. did not have a valid experimental design). Similarly, the studies saying there's no > global warming appear only on the website of places like The Heartland Institute, because > they similarly do not qualify as science due to lack of valid experimental design. (And if > you want to know what constitutes valid experimental design, I suggest you take Research > Methods 501 in graduate school, there are so many ways to screw up experimental design, > some deliberate, that it takes a whole freakin' course in grad school to cover even a small > percentage of them). The few "there is no global warming" studies that *have* been > published in peer-reviewed journals have not thus far been reproducible by anybody other > than their authors or their authors' cronies (i.e. other people in the pay of industry groups) > and thus do not (yet) qualify as science. > > In the case of CO2, we know it's a greenhouse gas. You pump CO2 into a glass globe and > expose it to the sun, it gets hotter at the bottom of the globe than a glass globe with, say, > nitrogen. This is scientifically provable and has been proven via approximately 150 years > of research and literally thousands of studies. You can do the experiment yourself using > little CO2 cartridges, a wooden box, a thermometer, and a glass top. We can also estimate > the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere via human activity over the past 100 years or > so via looking at tax records for electrical generation plants, the amount of petroleum > extracted from the ground, coal dug up, etc. You do the estimate, and it's a big heaping > amount of CO2. Then you can do experiments with CO2/nitrogen mixes and see just how > big the greenhouse effect is with given concentrations, and get a pretty good estimate of > how much this is eventually going to warm up the planet. It's all simple science in the end, > 150 years worth of scientific studies of the greenhouse effects of CO2. Nobody ever > thought about human activity being a big deal though because the atmosphere is so big > and until recently nobody ever put together the sheer scale of human activity over the past > 100 years to > > And yes, the CO2 level has been higher in the past. All the CO2 in the ground was once in > the air, after all. And fig trees once grew in Alaska. The question is not whether it's > "natural" to re-transfer this CO2 from the ground back into the air. The question is > whether the economic consequences of transferring this CO2 from the ground back into > the air outweigh the economic consequences of reducing CO2 emissions, which is a > complicated question which depends on a variety of factors -- how fast will the sea level > rise, what are going to be the climate effects insofar as rainfall and etc., and so on. I don't > pretend to understand all the various models that the scientists are using to predict these > things, I'm going to rely on the scientists to do science. I (who design computers for a > living) wouldn't tell a heart surgeon how to do open heart surgery, any more than I'd let > the heart surgeon tell me how to design computers, and I'm not going to tell a climate > scientist how to do climate science. There is a scientific process, it works, we have about > 400 years of experience with the scientific process proving that it works, and buying junk > science with millions of dollars of ExxonMobil money is *not* part of that process. >

[Luc Legrain]

Yes,Jacques, the old fat ones too.. Them having no suits on will cause the male population to have COLD sweat hence reducing the air temperature... I got it all figured out. Just picture one of those large ladies, naked, straddling your bike ? Now notice how the air temp dropped a couple of degrees while you had that image in your mind ... See.. It works. Am I Noble Prize material ? --- Jacobus De Bruyn wrote:

> Hey Luc, the old fat ones too? Those are the ones > that > suck up most. You horny old son of a gun. > > > >

____________________________________________________________________________________

> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >

____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Jacobus De Bruyn]

Luc, tell those fat ladies to stay out of the water, or we will have flooding. The amount their bathing suits suck up is no match for the volume their voluptious bodies will displace. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[albatrossklr]

Hi folks, I approach all perceived facts with a healthy dose of skepticism. All in, I don't know if humans are a prime cause of climate change, but I'm certain that there are too many people and there are way too many people who will be driving cars, building big houses, and being a general nuisance in the future. Most of us on this list choose to ride KLR's and do ride not for altruistic reasons; we enjoy riding. Many parts of the world still ride a basic Honda dream 50 cc and will be moving to cars soon. They will drive up the price of gas (petrol) while pumping more pollutants into the air. Here at home in the U.S. we build Mc-Mansions, drive vehicles that get 10 MPG (me 2 btw), and avoid mass transit like the plague. So what's bad about that? Many people in the developing world measure their success by the image they see on movie screens. Most of those movies come from the US and show our excesses. So we are causing the trend which makes gas/oil more expensive. Now, in the U.S.,we are waking-up to the fact that dependence on imported fuels is strategic mistake. Question is; will we do anything about it? I do not tout ethanol, biodiesel may be good, wind & solar may be better. I just hope someone more intelligent than I is working to define what's next. albatross who knows a problem when he see's one even if he knows not the cause

[Russell Scott]

I don't know anything about the Heartland Institute. All I know is all these genius scientists who can tells what happened fifty million years ago, don't ever tell us a thing about the greatest climate event in recent history, that happened 4000 years ago, the worldwide flood. And many of them don't want to know, because then its makes their god likes egos subjected to a higher authority, who already has the answers to all their questions about how EVERYTHING works, because He created it all. R -----Original Message----- From: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of E.L. Green Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:41 PM To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Re: NKLR metaphysics, the future, oil, and energy

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "revmaaatin" wrote: > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Anyone who thinks that the "Global Warming? What Global Warming?" > movement isn't being coordinated by big-business interests, check > your sources. > > You have peaked my interest, and maybe I'm a little dense this > evening...Could you elaborate just a little bit more? From your > post, it is difficult (for me) to discern your point #1. Do you > believe Heartland Institute a 'fraud'? And the reference to the > credentials of the ICSC? It looks to me like those initials are > different than the initials of the organization posted earlier. The Heartland Institute is basically the smokestack industry equivalent of The Tobacco Institute. You know, the guys who said that smoking was good for you and didn't cause cancer? The ones where when internal memos were subpoena'ed the tobacco executives knew they were lying, it turns out? Beware of industry groups attempting to influence public policy with "junk science". You know it's junk science if the only place the "study" is published is on their web site. As for qualifications, the main qualification that counts is whether a) the experimental design is valid, and b) the experiment is reproducible. The former is typically validated via publication in a major journal in the field in question (whether cancer research or climate studies), the latter is typically validated over a matter of time via successive studies arriving at the same conclusions given a particular experimental design. Journals will publish almost anything if it passes a basic laugh test -- see, e.g., the Pons/Fleischman "cold fusion" study where everybody was dubious but couldn't immediately poke a hole in the experimental design so it was published. Journals love being leading-edge, but the studies saying tobacco was good for you never managed to pass even a basic laugh test (i.e. did not have a valid experimental design). Similarly, the studies saying there's no global warming appear only on the website of places like The Heartland Institute, because they similarly do not qualify as science due to lack of valid experimental design. (And if you want to know what constitutes valid experimental design, I suggest you take Research Methods 501 in graduate school, there are so many ways to screw up experimental design, some deliberate, that it takes a whole freakin' course in grad school to cover even a small percentage of them). The few "there is no global warming" studies that *have* been published in peer-reviewed journals have not thus far been reproducible by anybody other than their authors or their authors' cronies (i.e. other people in the pay of industry groups) and thus do not (yet) qualify as science. In the case of CO2, we know it's a greenhouse gas. You pump CO2 into a glass globe and expose it to the sun, it gets hotter at the bottom of the globe than a glass globe with, say, nitrogen. This is scientifically provable and has been proven via approximately 150 years of research and literally thousands of studies. You can do the experiment yourself using little CO2 cartridges, a wooden box, a thermometer, and a glass top. We can also estimate the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere via human activity over the past 100 years or so via looking at tax records for electrical generation plants, the amount of petroleum extracted from the ground, coal dug up, etc. You do the estimate, and it's a big heaping amount of CO2. Then you can do experiments with CO2/nitrogen mixes and see just how big the greenhouse effect is with given concentrations, and get a pretty good estimate of how much this is eventually going to warm up the planet. It's all simple science in the end, 150 years worth of scientific studies of the greenhouse effects of CO2. Nobody ever thought about human activity being a big deal though because the atmosphere is so big and until recently nobody ever put together the sheer scale of human activity over the past 100 years to And yes, the CO2 level has been higher in the past. All the CO2 in the ground was once in the air, after all. And fig trees once grew in Alaska. The question is not whether it's "natural" to re-transfer this CO2 from the ground back into the air. The question is whether the economic consequences of transferring this CO2 from the ground back into the air outweigh the economic consequences of reducing CO2 emissions, which is a complicated question which depends on a variety of factors -- how fast will the sea level rise, what are going to be the climate effects insofar as rainfall and etc., and so on. I don't pretend to understand all the various models that the scientists are using to predict these things, I'm going to rely on the scientists to do science. I (who design computers for a living) wouldn't tell a heart surgeon how to do open heart surgery, any more than I'd let the heart surgeon tell me how to design computers, and I'm not going to tell a climate scientist how to do climate science. There is a scientific process, it works, we have about 400 years of experience with the scientific process proving that it works, and buying junk science with millions of dollars of ExxonMobil money is *not* part of that process. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]