Bush Library

[Nacho]

By your logice PK I must conclude that cigarettes don't cause cancer and that McDonalds quarter pounders are good for you. The unscientific mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Stallion]

Good public policy is based on the best scientific information availiable. The best scientific information is overwhelmingly in favor of human causation to global warming. Bad public policy is based on political and partisan unscientific attacks based upon economic expediency. My mind is open-science is not infalliable and it is often proved to be wrong based on SCIENCE funny enough. Why don't you get one of those conservative think tanks to actually prove its point scientically. My concern is the many people who want to ignore the scientific community and refute the science based upon political arguments rather than upon their own science. I think most American's are interested in the scientific debate not the political debate.

[smu diamond m]

By your logice PK I must conclude that cigarettes don't cause cancer and that McDonalds quarter pounders are good for you. The unscientific mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Neither in moderation are gonna kill you. You need to stick with cheese and stop meddling in science.

[PK]

Good public policy is based on the best scientific information availiable. The best scientific information is overwhelmingly in favor of human causation to global warming. Bad public policy is based on political and partisan unscientific attacks based upon economic expediency. My mind is open-science is not infalliable and it is often proved to be wrong based on SCIENCE funny enough. Why don't you get one of those conservative think tanks to actually prove its point scientically. My concern is the many people who want to ignore the scientific community and refute the science based upon political arguments rather than upon their own science. I think most American's are interested in the scientific debate not the political debate.

That's exactly what I told those scientist back in the 1950s when they were stating we are at the start of the next ice age.

I have no political stance in all of this, but I'm not so sure those beating the global warming drums can say the same thing. All I'm saying is that if you approach the problem as being one caused by man, then you look everywhere for things that will lead to or support that conclusion...often ignoring other possible causes along the way. Climate records are only available for a relatively short period in the existence of the earth. Coring the current layers of ice does not tell you what occured prior to there being ice. What ice we have now may only be the reminents of the last ice age. Not a long enough period to confirm that what we are going through now is anything more than a long duration climate cycle for the earth. Although man may be contributing to the current warming trend, it does not necessarily mean man can change the direction of it. Should we try...probably, but at what cost?

Perhaps we could look at this as the difference between a civil case and a criminal case. Right now the evidence presented is at a level of being a perponderance of evidence, but not to a level of being beyond a reasonable doubt...in my opinion.

[Stallion]

well scientists would have to explain it - it was documented in An Inconvenient Truth-but in fact the premise is that they can in fact establish weather conditions millions of years ago. Again, just a scientific theory based on availiable data. I'd be more iimpressed by scientific evidence that either the data is false or the data was incorrectly analysed. But I don't hear that from many refuting global warming. I hear political arguments not even remotely based on a scientific model and that's why they are losing the debate.

[smu diamond m]

well scientists would have to explain it - it was documented in An Inconvenient Truth-but in fact the premise is that they can in fact establish weather conditions millions of years ago. Again, just a scientific theory based on availiable data. I'd be more iimpressed by scientific evidence that either the data is false or the data was incorrectly analysed. But I don't hear that from many refuting global warming. I hear political arguments not even remotely based on a scientific model and that's why they are losing the debate.

Global warming -- by definition -- is occuring; Over the last few decades the average global temperature has risen. I'm pretty sure this is indisputable, the debate is as to the cause of aforementioned warming. Man? I highly doubt it. No one has yet to prove that man is the direct (or indirect) cause of it. I don't think global climatological data goes back far enough to even substantiate the trend for more than 50-100 years. As far as air quality goes (aside from its purported global warming implications), the "Green" measures people are going out of their way to achieve are critical in keeping the air clean.

[smu diamond m]

And An Inconvenient Truth is hardly a non-partisan documentary on Global Warming.

[Nacho]

I guess you naysayers will believe global warming (or climate change as some like to call it) when it's too late. The only reason you don't believe it now is that the liberals thought of it first. In your minds it is a political and not a scientific issue. Go over and talk to any science professor at any campus in the country. You might learn something but I doubt it. If you knew anything about science at all you would know the validity of what Gore is saying.

BTW there is no safe level of smoking. Do you people know anything?

I would encourage you to smoke and eat McDonalds to your heart's content (pun unintentional) but I'm afraid you would.

[smu diamond m]

Better off to not smoke? Yes. An infrequent smoker is not going to die from smoking, something else will get them. And by infrequent I don't even mean weekly. Insurance companies consider you a smoker if you have smoked in the last 6 months. And no, an occasional McDonald's stop won't kill you either. You need to get off your supersize me soap box and realize ANYTHING in EXTREME AMOUNTS is going to kill you. Water, ice cream, running, walking, biking, ibuprofen. This doesn't necessarily translate to the same things in moderation also being a direct cause of your death.

You are being ignorant if you think people don't "believe" in Global Warming, or as put in most classes these days "the Global Climate Change", because of their political affiliation. And after your response, I'm pretty sure you didn't read my whole post. You need to get over yourself. I'm pretty sure the only reason you jumped on the boat was because your fearless leader Al Gore told you to. He did to global warming what he did to the internet, not a damn thing; we've all known about it for quite some time.

[Nacho]

Smoking in moderation will kill you. There is no safe level. Repeat, no safe level.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that all things in moderation is the key to a healthy life, buy lots of insurance.

Glad to hear you are on the Global Warming bandwagon. Al and the liberal east coast elite welcomes you and all others who have now seen the light.

[PK]

well scientists would have to explain it - it was documented in An Inconvenient Truth-but in fact the premise is that they can in fact establish weather conditions millions of years ago. Again, just a scientific theory based on availiable data. I'd be more iimpressed by scientific evidence that either the data is false or the data was incorrectly analysed. But I don't hear that from many refuting global warming. I hear political arguments not even remotely based on a scientific model and that's why they are losing the debate.

I would love for someone to fund me to do that research, but alas I have to work every day to make a living. Besides as much as I would like to delve into the global warming thing, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the big bang theory presented by the scientific community. I have two major questions about it that I can't seem to find an answer to. First, where did all the matter that was blown all over the universe come from and second what made it go BANG? I also have some questions concerning the theory of evolution...but hey, I'll save those for another day.

[EastStang]

I commend this show to your knowledge. First watch Uncle Al Gore's moive, "An Inconvenient Truth", then watch this show It lasts about an hour, so make sure you have plenty of beer.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[smu diamond m]

Article on Global Temperature (Link)

Interesting, I though.

[Water Pony]

Back to the Library Discussion, this is from the Saturday DMN:

Federal judge sends condo lawsuit back to state court


12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, March 24, 2007

By MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

A long-running legal battle accusing Southern Methodist University of using fraud to kick out condo residents for the George W. Bush Presidential Library was sent back to state court Friday by a federal judge.

The case brought by University Park lawyer Gary Vodicka has been transferred back and forth among several courts since it was filed in August 2005. And according to some, the process has held up the Bush administration's selection of a library site.

U.S. District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer ruled Friday that the case should be sent back to state court because federal racketeering allegations had been dropped.

Mr. Vodicka could not be reached for comment Friday evening. But in court filings, the university argued against sending it back, accusing Mr. Vodicka of abusing the court system.

John McElhaney, a lawyer for SMU, said: "Vodicka appears to be trying to move the case back and forth whenever it seems to result in some delay for him. ... We have full confidence in the state court system."

Mr. McElhaney said the university will file a motion for summary judgment, a legal move that would effectively dismiss the case by having a judge rule on the facts and legal issues before trial.

Mr. Vodicka argued in court documents that the case dealt mainly with state law.