IT'S TIME TO CHANGE THE PRACTICES OF THE PET FOOD INDUSTRY!!!!! Introduction

Gaubster, socialism and communism are completely different systems.
Educate yourself.


Liberalism eventually leads to Socialism which eventually leads to Communism.
Show me where the checks and balances are that would keep one thing from
leading to the next?

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: "Cathy Friedmann"

DKG and Steve G, please accept my wide applauses to your posts! I love
people who are environmentally conscious.

Unlike a certain Mr. G. W. Bush...

Any proof of that, Cathy??

Hey, you want to view GWB as environmentally friendly, go right ahead. But
then you'd better not pay attention to his record environmental issues,
'cause you'll be sorely disappointed.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: "Cathy Friedmann"

DKG and Steve G, please accept my wide applauses to your posts! I love
people who are environmentally conscious.

Unlike a certain Mr. G. W. Bush...

Any proof of that, Cathy??

Hey, you want to view GWB as environmentally friendly, go right ahead. But
then you'd better not pay attention to his record environmental issues,
'cause you'll be sorely disappointed.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ...
(...)

There are many, many references showing global warming as a fraud. For every
source you provide, another source can be provided debunking your source.
It's a game to you, apparently.

Quite so, Mr G. Would you like to play, or would you prefer to creep
off the field before the game begins...?

You say 'For every source you provide, another source can be provided
debunking your source'. So, let's get it on. I'll start with a few
sources for you to debunk:

Root et al. 2003, Nature 421: 57-60. doi:10.1038/nature01333
From the abstract: 'Over the past 100 years, the global average
temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 °C and is projected to
continue to rise at a rapid rate'

The authors review 143 other articles, concluding that 'These analyses
reveal a consistent temperature-related shift, or 'fingerprint', in
species ranging from molluscs to mammals and from grasses to trees.
Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in
the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints
of species.'


Vinnikov & Grody 2003: Science 302, 269-272
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/302/5643/269.pdf

'Our analysis shows a trend of 0.22° to 0.26°C per 10 years,
consistent with the global warming trend derived from surface
meteorological stations.'

' In our analysis of the MSU channel 2 data, we found nothing that
would even remotely suggest the existence of a cooling trend in the
troposphere temperature for the 1978-to-2002 period.'


Wigley & Raper 2001: Science 293, 451-454
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/293/5529/451.pdf

'In summary, we have shown that the very high upper-limit warming rate
of about 0.5degC/decade ... is much less likely than ... about
0.3degC/decade. Even warming at this rate, however, is very large
compared with the observed warming over the past century...'

In a letter to Science magazine, Bradley (2001) comments 'The evidence
for warming over the last 60 years is unequivocal, even if the direct
instrumental record is ignored. The change in temperature has led to a
major reduction in the mass of alpine glaciers in almost all parts of
the world (1), an increase in permafrost thawing at high latitudes (2)
and at high altitudes (3), a reduction in the extent and thickness of
Arctic sea-ice (4), later freeze-up and earlier break-up dates of ice
on rivers and lakes (5), and an increase in the calving rate of
Antarctic ice shelves (6). There is no evidence or reason to think
that these systems have a lag response to warming of 50 years or more
[e.g., (7)]. There have also been shifts in the distribution of plant
and animal species, both latitudinally and altitudinally (8), changes
in the phenology of plant leafing and flowering (9), and the storage
of significant quantities of heat in the near-surface ocean (10), as
well as an overall rise in sea-level driven by both continental ice
melting and a steric change due to the increase in overall ocean
temperature (11). In addition, there have been remarkable increases in
ground temperatures over the last millennium (12).' (Science 292, p.
2011 - 15 Jun 2001).

Each of those numbers refers to a citation in the letter, to support
the statement made.

You will note that I've restricted myself to the journals 'Science'
and 'Nature', perhaps the most prestigious scientific journals in
circulation. I have also barely scratched the surface of the papers
just in Science and Nature that highlight the existence of global
warming.

When debunking these papers, I suggest that you stick to peer-reviewed
journal articles. We wouldn't want you giving 'cites' to absurd
right-wing conspiracy theory nonsense now, would we?


Try selling your "global warming" to people suffering from the cold winter
we've been having here in the US and Canada. AlGore attempted it on the
coldest day of the year some weeks back and he was ridiiculed (rightfully so)
for being an idiot.

Feel free to illustrate the idiocy in the authors I cite above. I'm
sure they would value your perceptive and clear-thinking input.

Oh, by the way, a search or two of a few appropriate journal search
engines suggests that there are probably 4,000 peer reviewed journal
articles dealing with global warming. Just to give you a flavour to
savour.

Over to you.
Steve.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ...
(...)

There are many, many references showing global warming as a fraud. For every
source you provide, another source can be provided debunking your source.
It's a game to you, apparently.

Quite so, Mr G. Would you like to play, or would you prefer to creep
off the field before the game begins...?

You say 'For every source you provide, another source can be provided
debunking your source'. So, let's get it on. I'll start with a few
sources for you to debunk:

Root et al. 2003, Nature 421: 57-60. doi:10.1038/nature01333
From the abstract: 'Over the past 100 years, the global average
temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 °C and is projected to
continue to rise at a rapid rate'

The authors review 143 other articles, concluding that 'These analyses
reveal a consistent temperature-related shift, or 'fingerprint', in
species ranging from molluscs to mammals and from grasses to trees.
Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in
the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints
of species.'


Vinnikov & Grody 2003: Science 302, 269-272
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/302/5643/269.pdf

'Our analysis shows a trend of 0.22° to 0.26°C per 10 years,
consistent with the global warming trend derived from surface
meteorological stations.'

' In our analysis of the MSU channel 2 data, we found nothing that
would even remotely suggest the existence of a cooling trend in the
troposphere temperature for the 1978-to-2002 period.'


Wigley & Raper 2001: Science 293, 451-454
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/293/5529/451.pdf

'In summary, we have shown that the very high upper-limit warming rate
of about 0.5degC/decade ... is much less likely than ... about
0.3degC/decade. Even warming at this rate, however, is very large
compared with the observed warming over the past century...'

In a letter to Science magazine, Bradley (2001) comments 'The evidence
for warming over the last 60 years is unequivocal, even if the direct
instrumental record is ignored. The change in temperature has led to a
major reduction in the mass of alpine glaciers in almost all parts of
the world (1), an increase in permafrost thawing at high latitudes (2)
and at high altitudes (3), a reduction in the extent and thickness of
Arctic sea-ice (4), later freeze-up and earlier break-up dates of ice
on rivers and lakes (5), and an increase in the calving rate of
Antarctic ice shelves (6). There is no evidence or reason to think
that these systems have a lag response to warming of 50 years or more
[e.g., (7)]. There have also been shifts in the distribution of plant
and animal species, both latitudinally and altitudinally (8), changes
in the phenology of plant leafing and flowering (9), and the storage
of significant quantities of heat in the near-surface ocean (10), as
well as an overall rise in sea-level driven by both continental ice
melting and a steric change due to the increase in overall ocean
temperature (11). In addition, there have been remarkable increases in
ground temperatures over the last millennium (12).' (Science 292, p.
2011 - 15 Jun 2001).

Each of those numbers refers to a citation in the letter, to support
the statement made.

You will note that I've restricted myself to the journals 'Science'
and 'Nature', perhaps the most prestigious scientific journals in
circulation. I have also barely scratched the surface of the papers
just in Science and Nature that highlight the existence of global
warming.

When debunking these papers, I suggest that you stick to peer-reviewed
journal articles. We wouldn't want you giving 'cites' to absurd
right-wing conspiracy theory nonsense now, would we?


Try selling your "global warming" to people suffering from the cold winter
we've been having here in the US and Canada. AlGore attempted it on the
coldest day of the year some weeks back and he was ridiiculed (rightfully so)
for being an idiot.

Feel free to illustrate the idiocy in the authors I cite above. I'm
sure they would value your perceptive and clear-thinking input.

Oh, by the way, a search or two of a few appropriate journal search
engines suggests that there are probably 4,000 peer reviewed journal
articles dealing with global warming. Just to give you a flavour to
savour.

Over to you.
Steve.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ...
From: dgk

Steve, really, don't bother. He's hopeless and clueless and wrapped in
his flag.

If you hate it so much, then get the hell out. Otherwise quit 'yer
bitching. I'm sure Steve G in the UK would love to have you room with him.

If dgk were to attempt to room with me in the UK, he'd be in for a futile search.

Misery loves company, you know?

Ah, feeling quite chipper meself, as it 'appens.

Steve.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ...
From: dgk

Steve, really, don't bother. He's hopeless and clueless and wrapped in
his flag.

If you hate it so much, then get the hell out. Otherwise quit 'yer
bitching. I'm sure Steve G in the UK would love to have you room with him.

If dgk were to attempt to room with me in the UK, he'd be in for a futile search.

Misery loves company, you know?

Ah, feeling quite chipper meself, as it 'appens.

Steve.

On 06 Feb 2004 23:45:27 GMT, (GAUBSTER2) wrote:

Subject: IT'S TIME TO CHANGE THE PRACTICES OF THE PET FOOD INDUSTRY!!!!!
Introduction
From: (Steve G)

If you are referenceing global warming, that's only a theory.

Hee hee hee.

You could hop over to the AGRICOLA search engine, and find c.1000
papers dealing with global warming.

Perhaps you could pop across to the EPA web site, to see what they
have to say on the issue:

There are many, many references showing global warming as a fraud. For every
source you provide, another source can be provided debunking your source. It's
a game to you, apparently. It's interesting because in the 1970s, the big
environmental scare was the "approaching Ice Age". Now it's "global warming".
Try selling your "global warming" to people suffering from the cold winter
we've been having here in the US and Canada. AlGore attempted it on the
coldest day of the year some weeks back and he was ridiiculed (rightfully so)
for being an idiot.


No sir, there is no question that the world is becoming warmer over
all. On average, the temperature is increasing year after year. You
can argue that it is not because of human activity, but you can not
argue that it is not getting warmer. Well, I guess you can but no
scientist will agree with you.

The fact that it is ass freezing cold this winter in the east coast
does not disprove global warming. All that warming means is that the
atmosphere is more active; heat is energy. We can expect more active
(read severe) weather of all kinds and we are getting it. More
droughts, more floods, more intense heat, more intense cold. And, over
all, hotter weather. Hey, but since it only means the end of humanity,
why should we care? Let's keep selling those SUVs.

Oh yea, the ozone hole you mentioned. It is closing. Because we took
action and banned the chlorine containing gases and such. I'm sure you
opposed that as handicapping industry.

On 06 Feb 2004 23:45:27 GMT, (GAUBSTER2) wrote:

Subject: IT'S TIME TO CHANGE THE PRACTICES OF THE PET FOOD INDUSTRY!!!!!
Introduction
From: (Steve G)

If you are referenceing global warming, that's only a theory.

Hee hee hee.

You could hop over to the AGRICOLA search engine, and find c.1000
papers dealing with global warming.

Perhaps you could pop across to the EPA web site, to see what they
have to say on the issue:

There are many, many references showing global warming as a fraud. For every
source you provide, another source can be provided debunking your source. It's
a game to you, apparently. It's interesting because in the 1970s, the big
environmental scare was the "approaching Ice Age". Now it's "global warming".
Try selling your "global warming" to people suffering from the cold winter
we've been having here in the US and Canada. AlGore attempted it on the
coldest day of the year some weeks back and he was ridiiculed (rightfully so)
for being an idiot.


No sir, there is no question that the world is becoming warmer over
all. On average, the temperature is increasing year after year. You
can argue that it is not because of human activity, but you can not
argue that it is not getting warmer. Well, I guess you can but no
scientist will agree with you.

The fact that it is ass freezing cold this winter in the east coast
does not disprove global warming. All that warming means is that the
atmosphere is more active; heat is energy. We can expect more active
(read severe) weather of all kinds and we are getting it. More
droughts, more floods, more intense heat, more intense cold. And, over
all, hotter weather. Hey, but since it only means the end of humanity,
why should we care? Let's keep selling those SUVs.

Oh yea, the ozone hole you mentioned. It is closing. Because we took
action and banned the chlorine containing gases and such. I'm sure you
opposed that as handicapping industry.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ...
Gaubster, socialism and communism are completely different systems.
Educate yourself.


Liberalism eventually leads to Socialism which eventually leads to Communism.
Show me where the checks and balances are that would keep one thing from
leading to the next?

Gaubster, according to the dictionary, liberalism is:

- A political orientation that favors progress and reform
- An economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating
market and the gold standard

The definition of capitalism is:

- An economic system based on private ownership of capital

Now, isn´t the USA both capitalist and "liberalist"? Doesn´t the USA
advocate free competition and a self regulating market? Isn´t there a
law in the USA prohibiting monopoly?

So, has liberalism led the USA to socialism? Has the socialism in the
Scandinavian countries and Holland (which are, btw, also "liberalist"
and "capitalist" - businesses can be privately owned) led them to
communism? These countries have been socialist for who knows how long
while communism was "born" in 1917 with the Bolshevic revolution, when
Lenin took over inspired by Karl Marx´s "Capital."

I am under the impression that you never read a book or a newspaper in
your life. It appears that everything that you know comes from gossip,
mainly from people who want to manipulate your vote. We have a lot of
that here too. The political party of our current president will say
any lie about anyone or anything to convince people to vote on them.
They will play very dirty to win an election (does that ring a bell?).
Their hyprocrisy knows no bounds. And those people who do not read
either because they can´t (illiterate) or because they are too lazy to
do so, buy it. Now we are stuck with a man who´s doing nothing but
sinking the country and traveling around the world spending our money
with nonsense (does that ring another bell?).