New Global Warming Research

Somehow I missed this before. Oh, you know how it's done. You just pretend like I said something besides what I actually did say. You know, like you've been doing throughout. Indeed, they said that the exact trends in solar radiation were the opposite of what was needed. Not just that they were not seen, as you misrepresent. That the opposite was seen. Whether or not that's the result of sunspot changes or anything else is irrelevant - the Sun's forcing of the climate in the past decades has been to cool the Earth, not warm it.The opposite of warming is cooling, Holmes. Look, if you're having trouble reading that article - as is obvious - here's the Guardian reporting on scientists who propose a cooling trend that might already have begun: Cooling Sun brings relief to sweltering Earth | Environment | The GuardianHere's more discussion of the paper, which states as plainly as possible - the observed trend of the Sun has been to cool the Earth, not to warm it. Sun not a cause of global warming : Climate FeedbackThe Sun's influence on climate, Holmes, has been to cool it. Insolation is decreasing, slightly. Are you saying that rain and clouds are above the atmosphere, between it and the sun? That's insane.Why is it that you're lecturing me on climate, but you don't seem to know where anything is? It's bizarre. I'm not convinced of anything except that your posts have been nothing but dissembling, and that you've failed to defend your handwaving. I don't claim to be an expert. But I do know that the atmosphere is between the Earth and the Sun, a fact that apparently continues to escape you. But that's exactly what you implied. Are you saying someone else writes your posts? (You should fire them for incompetence.) Yet, you described his ruling as a ruling on errors, instead of a ruling on whether it could be shown in a classroom (as indeed, he ruled it could.) Sorry, Holmes, but you've been caught out in the lie, here. Oh, I'm so sure that it is. Please. You've been caught out misrepresenting your sources, and now you're backpedalling with one of your old excuses. "It was a joke." "It was an honest mistake."The thing about an honest mistake, Holmes, is that you have to be an honest person to make one. Who is neither one of the authors of the article we were discussing. More misrepresentation on your part.

A book with a statement on the cover "novel", may contain more than just the fictional prose inside. If you can distinguish a "forward", or an "about the author", or an historical section about the time within which the novel was written or about the subject it covers, then you can figure out which is fiction and which is not in Crichton's book.As it is there is a clear statement of division in the book.Your backpedaling on the nature of science is amusing. In order to become a doctor, you must train in science. When you go to treat a person it will be using scientific techniques, or scientifically derived techniques. A surgeon will not suddenly call on Zeus to save a patient, but rather apply his scientific knowledge of human anatomy and how organs function, to repair the body in question.A person can of course let it become mechanical, once the skills needed have become wrote. But that does not change whence the knowledge and the techniques have come, nor what one is applying.I'm not sure why you ask about my being determined to "tar" Gore. I stated quite accurately that he is not a scientist. He isn't, is he?I also do not like him as a politician for many reasons, and when he acts as a scientist when he is not. For me Gore is to environmental science, as Bush is to intelligence and diplomacy. They are both self-promoters using inaccurate information, and doing a disservice to science and reason.As a person, I'm sure he's just as amiable and well-meaning as Bush, though probably much smarter. I have nothing personal against him.As far as the link to the RC page, just look up to my reply to your post saying I never gave one. I apologized as it was simply an oversight, and gave it.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

1) Your words from two different posts... Where am I getting it wrong that you are accusing them of deception? If not, what are you trying to suggest? And in any case, so your answer to my original question I take it is that you do not believe they were being deceptive?2&3) On to your reading comprehension skills... Crash, that is exactly what I was saying. I did not say that they were arguing the sun's activity would have made the earth warmer. That is how they were in practice debunking the OP's argument.The only contention between us was about whether the sun's energy output was decreasing.I'm not sure what this sudden reversal of your argument is about.As far as your linked articles go... thank you again... Context is very important. You are wrong yet again. And as for your second link... Whoops. And... Take a look at what graphs Mod posted... ACRIM... positive trend in solar irradiance. The scientists in this new article used a different graph than we were looking at, and the small decrease was less than 10K over 20 years which was below the accuracy of the instrumentation.It just amazes me how you do not read your own sources. The posts go on to show many problems and a link to another site with still more problems. Apparently the authors were not even climatologists. You will also note several people discussing delays between radiance and warming, one including the context of thermodynamics. I am saying that they are within and part of the atmosphere. To state otherwise is errant. State changes occur within the atmosphere. I have repeatedly stated, contrary to your claim above, that the sun's energy enters the atmosphere first. Of course the time between doing so and hitting the earth itself is rather small, but that's besides the point. Yes, it hits and a majority of the energy passes through it unabsorbed.The portion that is absorbed does many things, not just raise temperatures. It is filled with chemicals, which are driven to react, or change state. It is a gas which can and does change in volume and pressure in reaction to heat.Likewise, there is always differential heating of the atmosphere, never uniform.I agreed with your reaction that the scientists in the OP would have to explain mechanisms for a lag. Eventually an increase in heat has to show up doing something. However, your understanding of the mechanics of the atmosphere, and that there are mechanisms for a lag, are not consistent with modern science.I provided an explanation, I have provided links and information from scientists, and twice now I have shown this to be explained within your own sources. The first one you dismissed your own article, now I'm not sure what you plan to do.I think we are more than done with this topic. You cannot tell me what I mean to imply. As it stands I have apologized for any confusion that there was an implication. One was not meant. We are now done with this red herring. ??? I accurately represented my source, including a very large section of the page. It was an honest mistake for having forgotten to cut n paste the link in. I apologized and immediately gave it to you.As far as the author not being the author of the page you linked to, there are a number of scientists at RC. The authors of the page you linked to referred to the article I linked to as "our discussion" within their very first paragraph. Hence, they were embracing it as part of their opinion. Perhaps Eric wrote the piece for all of them, as he mentions there were a number of climatologists with him, what they thought, and what their final feelings were about the movie.If you would rather not deal with it, just say so. I'm tired of the red-herrings and other obfuscations.Edited by Silent H, : info instrumentation

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Plumbers use scientifically derived techniques, as well.I wonder if the distinction between "engineering" and "science" means anything to you, or if it's a complete mystery to you why we have separate words for engineering, science, and medical disciplines. So you say, but Tim Ball couldn't, and I see no reason why Crichton should be considered an authoritative source when he does original research outside of his training and expertise. What is the statement? What, are you kidding me? With all the doctors who go in for faith-based baloney and homeopathic horseshit and acupuncture posh-tosh, you really don't think that doctors out there are calling down divine powers to heal their patients? For serious?I'm not saying that a doctor can't be a scientist, but there's nothing about medicine that makes you automatically one. Indeed the vast number of medical professionals who fully embrace creationism makes it pretty clear that rigorous scientific methodology is, at best, a minor part of the medical curriculum. Only that some attempt to discredit him appears in nearly every one of your posts, I guess. Other than that, no, I guess you're not out to tar Gore as anything.Get real. That's just absolutely ridiculous. No less a scientific body than the Nobel Prize committee has lauded Gore, and you think that's because he has a record of bad science? Nonsense. How many scientific figures have to come out to verify the legitimate, sound science in his presentations and advocacy before you'll drop such facile comparisons as "Gore is the Bush of science"?You really can't see how every one of your posts is tainted by your personal feelings against this guy? For real? Do you read your own posts before you hit "submit", or at any time afterwards?

The "to the extent" is where you're getting it wrong, so much so that, again, I'm forced to wonder aloud about your ability to interpret the English language."to the extent that these researchers don't justify their choice of using sunspots, instead of direct measurement, they're being deceitful, too."To what extent are they not justifying their choice? I don't know, so I can hardly accuse them of being deceitful. If they offer no more justification than they present in the article - which is none - then obviously some deceit is going on.Or maybe the journalist simply edited that part out. Certainly there's no dispute that the reporter has engaged in some climate-denial deceit, here. Right? And that contention was answered by the article - it's decreasing. The trend is exactly opposite of an increase - a decrease. You do know what "opposite" means, yes? I rest my case, Holmes. You seem to be the expert at reading only what appears to buoy your arguments. Why don't you try reading the entire article, for once? Whoops what? It's not surface temperatures that I've been talking about, but atmospheric ones. And a lag of as little as 15 years hardly proves your point, when you're original assertion was a lag of decades or more. It amazes me, Holmes, how you don't read any source, or any post, except to misrepresent them. That's been my position throughout, and the whole time, I've been trying to get you to stop hand-waving and explain what mechanisms would result in decades of lag - which you've still refused to do.Instead you've nitpicked analogies about heat and frying pans, which were simply there to demonstrate basic thermodynamic truths and the extent to which your hand-waving was falling short. And by chasing the analogies instead of the point, that's precisely what you've proven - how short you've fallen from actually supporting your model.That's all there is to it. The rest of this is a distraction. I've tried to steer us back onto topic but you've insisted on pursuing it for 40 posts, which is just further evidence of your relentless contrarianism and personal vendetta. You just can't help chase me around the forum, nitpicking.It's sick. Seek help. We were done 40 posts ago when you proved you couldn't do anything but hand-wave. Indeed. The problem is, you used the statements of Eric Steig to reflect on the credibility of Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann when you said: Except that it wasn't written by either of the authors of the article "Convenient Untruths", that was just another one of your misrepresentations.But it's nonsense. Contrary to your assertion Steig doesn't at any time contradict or repudiate the statements of Schmidt and Mann - Mann of the famous hockey stick, hardly an insignificant figure in climatology - and Steig's comments are no reason at all to assert "a little bias" on Mann and Schmidt's part, which was another of your assertions.You've been caught out in these lies from the beginning, Holmes. A judge didn't find "9 errors" in Gore's movie. RealClimate isn't a monolithic apologist for Gore. Gore does understand the science because he's drawn precisely the same conclusions from it that the climatological community has. Every single time you've attempted to undermine the information in "An Inconvenient Truth" you've been shown to have been dissembling and misrepresenting.It's obvious you have a vendetta against Gore. What the hell could he have possibly done to you? Oh, that's right, I remember - your boss, at the government lab where you used to sweep the floors, once told you to do something you didn't want to do, and for some incomprehensible reason you thought the responsibility for that lead right up to the office of the Vice President.Unbelievable. Is there any point, Holmes, where you will begin to address any climate issue on its merit?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Actually, while science may have eventually discovered techniques useful for plumbing, it is able to be done without any knowledge of science. It requires no training in science.There is a difference between engineering and science as fields. The former applies scientific knowledge to solve specific problems. Are you now claiming that engineers are not scientists either? That they do not use it in their work? I am unaware of any engineers that lack scientific training in this day and age.A couple days ago science seemed to be everything, now it seems no one practices it according to you... except atheists? What do you mean Ball couldn't figure out what part of Crichton's book was fiction? What proof do you have of that?You have a point that Crichton is working outside of his immediate field when discussing climatology. Of course he includes work by scientists which are climatologists, but I can agree he is still not within his field pulling it all together.Neither is Gore and neither are you. Are you kidding me? You want the actual words or something? The novel ends. Then there is a separate section (two I think) which he starts by explaining is a factual discussion of the topic of climate change (and environmentalism). It is as clear as a Forward, or an About the Author section. Science =/= atheism. There are plenty of scientists who are creationists and theists. As long as it does not impact their direct research then there is no problem.As it stands, what does any of this have to do with Crichton, or doctors using science? That because some may not be atheist, and some may not practice modern medicine (based on science) Crichton must be one of those? You discredit people, like Crichton for instance, that does not have a science background. In this thread I have been discrediting Gore on this very ground. What is the matter with that? They gave Kissinger the same prize. It was a political move and had nothing to do with his scientific achievements. You might even take note what his fellow recipients said about Gore's knowledge of the subject. Do you know?Indeed the prize was awarded for "making people aware"... of something most people were already well aware. I liked Dave Atell's riff on that... "Banging a Brazilian tranny without a condom, you'll probably catch something... Give me my Nobel Prize!"I have stated what Gore got right. It is his errors which concern me. The ones mentioned at RC, and a few others which they glossed over. He is comparable to Bush. He uses science inaccurately, and just enough to get people to buy his spiel and see him as some sort of answer man to another "emergency".For example, Katrina had as much to do with CC, as Iraq had to do with 9/11. That connection has really irked me.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

1) Is this serious? While I'm not sure if there is overt GH gas denial, or if the journalist simply used that ploy to bring in readers, I do agree the journalism is shoddy and its opening title and remarks contradict the actual contents.I guess we can close the book on this case. You made a claim which you meant to be a non-claim. You are not only intermingling articles, you are confusing arguments. We started by looking at the graphs Mod posted. You claimed to see a decrease in them, and indeed referencing them to your initial graph (which was about the last 30 years). Both Mod and I disputed that claim, and said even if that were so, would not effect what the original claim was about.You have since been dragging in article trying to prove your read on that graph was right. And the first article was discussing more than just solar radiance, it was including mechanisms. You simply denounced the journalist for including that discussion, with no evidence to explain why.So your pulling up a commentary about what solar activity is about to do, or has been doing most recently, is totally beside the point. Your source and mine discuss lags in atmospheric temps. I was only disputing your suggestion that there could be NO lag. Remember your claim was 8 seconds, that was it. I don't remember saying decades, only that that is what would be required by the scientists in the OP and I agreed that they would have to define the mechanisms. As it stands however, 15 years is more than a decade, and well more than 8 seconds... proving my point exactly. Perhaps you should read the material I posted and linked to. One of the quotes discussed this very thing, convection currents are one mechanism. Your own cite, which I quoted, stated the way oceans trap and store heat.If you have offered more than a handwave to those explanations, I have not seen it. We can both agree that adding heat to a frying pan will increase its temperature. The question was whether the earth's atmosphere was best represented by that simple model. It is not. It is a gas, which does not absorb all of the heat, and what it does absorb it can do many different things with which solids do not.There is no nit-picking here. You are wrong about energy and the atmosphere. I don't care if you admit it or not. The information has been provided, including from your own citations. This is all very sad for you. Gore has delivered the correct conclusions about 1) temps are up, 2) GH gases are responsible, and 3) these are from manmade sources. He has, as noted, made inaccurate statements about the science to support those conclusions, and has chosen to only discuss the most extreme model estimates.You can dance around it all you want, but RC notes his errors. And yes, they are apologists when they argue that they are not important compared to the message. To foster discussion.I am in support of good science, understanding it and how it works, more than I am for scaring people into public action on climate change. Wrong again.We are done.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Uh... huh. And you're an expert in plumbing, now, I presume? Uh, yes, I thought that was obvious. Engineers are not scientists; they're engineers. They apply the conclusions of science to practical problems but they don't generate knowledge according to the scientific method.Like plumbers. Like doctors. The article he wrote? Where he uses the novel as an authoritative source? You know, the part we were originally talking about?Why is it so hard for you to follow along in these exchanges? Sure, since it's your assertion that Crichton comes out and makes a statement that a part of his book is meant to be non-fictional. If all we have to support his contentions are his own assertion that they're true, it'd be nice to take a look at the assertion. And this section has been peer-reviewed?No? So precisely what assurance do you have that the material is not fictional? Christ, how credulous can you be? I suppose you think that Frodo Baggins wrote "The Fellowship of the Rings", too, since it says he did in the beginning? I don't see the relevance. And again, we see that there's no statement I can make that you won't try to contradict. Now you're in the position of defending creationism as sound science, since that's just what you've asserted that it is.Funny - of all your faults I never would have guessed that creationism was one of them. False. I've attempted to discredit Crichton on the grounds that he's a professional fabulist, a fact that everybody knows.You were the one who came out and asserted that Crichton was a scientist, an assertion that you have failed to defend for the simple reason that he is not one, and never has been one. Ah, so now you're an expert on the Nobel prize, as well.Tell me, how many of the committee members did you interview to reach this conclusion? Ah... hah. So, your source for your assertions is comedian Dave Attel.You're unhinged. See, again with the misrepresentation. The only "errors" they mention in Gore's movies are the ones they mention aren't errors at all. But that doesn't stop you from continuing to lie about the accuracy of Gore's movie. What's your evidence for that? I don't know a single serious climatologist who contests that greater ocean temperatures won't result in a greater frequency of stronger storms, and indeed, that's been born out by observation.And, of course, Gore doesn't state that climate change caused Katrina at any point in the movie, but I guess that won't stop you from misrepresenting him again.

I never asserted that there would be "no lag", only that assertions of lag weren't immediately obvious and needed to be defended by more than hand-waving.And you haven't. It's just been hand-waving from the get-go. Unknown mechanisms. Magic clouds outside the atmosphere. It's all nonsense. Currents in what? Oh, if only that were true.No, it's abundantly obvious that you're in support of obfuscation, of equating legitimate research funding with "gun-for-hire" compensation from oil companies, of bad science and agenda-driven personal attacks. If only. You keep saying that, but if it were really true you'd stop posting.It's just your relentless need to contradict me at this point.

If there is anyone else who has an issue with what I have written, or information I have provided so far, please let me know.Though I think what has happened here is obvious, I will be happy to discuss any outstanding issues.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well, I don't really want to start another thread, so I hoped that I could jump in here and ask a favor of anyone that would be interested in helping. Basically, I've been in a rather frustrating "debate" with someone at another site that refuses to accept any sort of global climate change. His latest remarks basically state that our increased CO2 levels are a result of an increase in temp, not the other way around. In other words, it is temperature that drives CO2, not CO2 leading to an increase in temperature.To be honest, I'm so tired of being the only one in the debate that puts the time into reading what the other side says, and of being the only one that looks up actual evidence...that I' m too lazy to look for the papers that basically address this issue. Can anyone (Crash) send to to a few sites to address CO2 and temp? He claims that the warming oceans are the reason we see increased CO2...and that humans have nothing to do with it. I can ask him why/how he thinks the oceans are warming in the first place...but he'd just say it's part of a natural cycle. He points out how humans contribute relatively little CO2, but can't seem to grasp the concept of a "tipping" point. Any help would be appreciated.

I cannot believe you read through the posts on this thread and then think Crash has any knowledge on the subject of CO2 level generation, much less warming effects.Regardless of how I seem to be portrayed I firmly support models relating GH gases to the current rise in global temps, and advocate their reduction. In other words I am not a "denier" as environmental fanatics might like to pose it, when I interject actual science into their nonscientific BS. While certainly not an expert, I have coursework in climatology (including research).The fact is, your opponent is partially right. CO2 levels may very well increase as temperatures increase. That is a somewhat rational possibility we should be concerned about, as temps increase (no matter the source). It might trigger an exponential increase in CO2 and so even higher temps than currently estimated. I personally think this possibility is a bit overblown, but agree it is possible. If you wish a link to an explanation of how CO2 may increase with temps, I can give one, but I might save you some time by giving you a rebuttal point instead.While certainly CO2 may increase as a result of warming, and yes oceans do warm all by themselves (as I have provided evidence--links-- for above already, including within crash's own citations), the problem (for your opponent) is that it doesn't change the fact that CO2 traps heat and increases temps.That we are producing additional CO2 would remain a problem, even if he insists that some of what has been seen in the environment is generated naturally. I mean so what if a chunk is produced naturally, if it traps heat, then our extra production of it can't be helping the situation, right?If he has a problem with the idea that CO2 traps heat, and raises temps, you can easily use my links above to show that fact. If you want me to scrounge for the links upthread... well you'd be pretty lazy... but I'll do it for you.I actually do not know what you mean by a "tipping point" myself, in this context. A tipping point for what specifically, and based on what (temps/CO2). I think your opponent needs to show evidence of how little humans contribute, as opposed to natural sources if his claim is to be solid. I have a feeling he can't.If he does, bring it here. I would find it interesting, and might be able to debunk it.But a note of caution, if you honestly do not understand that oceans do naturally warm and trap heat, without the aid of CO2, then you need to educate yourself about how the atmosphere and oceans actually work. They are almost like giant instruments designed to keep temps regulated, fluctuating. If you do not get this, you will not be able to defeat your opponent... only look really ignorant, when you might otherwise (about manmade GH gases leading to rising temps) be right.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Never mind.Holmes...I'm not stupid. I simply wanted a link to sites that address the claim that rising CO2 levels are a result of warming oceans temps...that's all. I don't want, nor need a lecture. Trust me, I understand the arguments. I was just tired of putting in the effort of refuting this guy every time. I spend 3-4 hours on a response because I do read his arguments...I do go to his links...and then I search for "scientific" refutation. That takes time...time I didn't want to spend. I simply wanted a short cut to save me the time in looking for specific papers.Let me see if I can make myself clear. He puts about 20 minutes into a response...I put about 3-4 hours. His latest was that the split amongst climate scientists between those that state we (humans) are having an effect and those that state we are not having an effect is 50-50. He claims that half of the scientific community states that humans are having no impact on global climate change. Now I have to go address that issue. And that takes time, because unlike him, I provide support for my assertions.

The tone of my post was not supposed to be lecture-like. The first two might have been defensive frustration, but the rest was supposed to be helpful sounding. I apologize if it came off other than that.As far as his claims about scientists goes, does he provide a link at all to such info? The only thing I have ever found... and I have looked... is back and forthing with no real data from any side. The IPCC claims the majority agree with climate change statements they have produced. That of course does not tell us how many that is, or if there is some body of scientists they are not including during their agreement sessions. There are one or two within the IPCC itself which claim dissenters exist but are not included in the decisions.This of course does not help your opponent at all. Many of the primary climatologists are associated in some way with IPCC and do agree with the statements. There are some notable exceptions, but where is the official headcount? I think it is his side that has to produce some factual evidence, given the weight and credentials of the IPCC.I have no good breakdown of GHG emissions, manmade vs natural sources. I make take a look at the IPCC report later, and see if they have anything. But again, does he give any links to that? Frankly I'd love to see some recent ones.I can give you a link to a page explaining that CO2 levels can be the result of rising temps, but nothing that states current ones ARE the result of that, or linked directly to ocean temps. The closest to that would be an offhand post to a climate site suggesting that the oceans may no longer be acting like the carbon sinks they normally can be (perhaps because of rising temps, and which might lead to gains in CO2... but that is not from releasing it).If all this guy has are assertions, then I'd say give up debating him and tell him why.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Its like Greenpeace. Greenpeace started out with very noble causes, none of which I could condemn in and of themselves. However, the movement has lost its way in pursuit of its cause. In many ways, Greenpeace is just a platform to spew rhetoric. More than that, they engage in dangerous practices that put themselves and others at risk.For instance, Greenpeace has often tried to blockade the US Navy simply because a particular ship is powered by nuclear energy. Any true environmentalist should know that nuclear energy is leaps and bounds cleaner than the alternative -- the alternative being millions of gallons of fossil fuel being aerosolized.It is also worth mentioning that the US Navy is the only organization that deals with nuclear energy that has a 100% track record of safety.When I was in the Navy, I had a buddy who was once stationed on a carrier that conducted some Arctic patrols. He said Greenpeace intercepted them in their little, orange dingy's, screaming invective.At one point they placed themselves in the middle of the carriers path. The CO got on a megaspeaker and instructed to them move, saying, (paraphrasing) "This ship weighs over a 300 tons... It doesn't stop on a dime. If you don't move, you could be killed. Move your vessel now!"Needless to say, they must have assumed it was a bluff and stood their ground. My friend told me that once the collision occurred, Greenpeace bodies were flung in to the freezing waters, destroying their small craft. The Navy dispatched a Search and Rescue team to rescue the activists from their own idiocy.In any case, its an illustration of how even a noble cause can be hijacked, and lose its way. In fact, a co-founder from Greenpeace left the organization because it was overrun by activists who simply used the cause to further their own political agenda. That's saying a lot, IMO. Of course they are of some factor. But I have serious reservations about laying blame with anthropomorphic global warming as the sole or major cause in the warming trend. And since there are a lot of dissenters of the mainstream, each with as much education and training as their counterparts, it makes it difficult to know how much is political and how much is actual, coming from either side. Personally, I am offended that somebody like Al Gore, who traipses across the globe in the fossil fuel nightmare that is his lier jet to conferences where he derides everyone else, so that he gets awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. You'd almost swear that they pray for disasters just so they could use it as ammunition to further their agenda. Its sick and deluded.Couldn't possibly be that building a city under sea level, and not listening to the Army Corps of Engineers about shoddy levies had anything to do with it. Just blame mankind in general. Propagate the Malthusian theory that overpopulation is really to blame for the perils of the earth.Even some seemingly respectable people have said some really stupid things in their frenetic zeal, such as:"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day." -Jacques Cousteau"People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them.” -Charles Wurster (of the Environmental Defense Fund)I find this terribly ironic, being that Charles is himself a human being. Perhaps he should heed some of his own convoluted advice, and lead us by example. I mean, eliminate people? Eliminate yourself, human being! Its like we're supposed to be sorry for being born, as if we had any control over that.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman