Perdone mi español como usted probablemente le puede decir no estoy muy versado en el idioma.

Muy bien redactada sobre la climategate el “fiasco. No es nada más que una estratagema para ciertos individuos y / o políticos, como Al Gore, para sacar provecho de las reclamaciones falsas.

Nuestro país está en extrema necesidad de puestos de trabajo ahora mismo y no un plan para hacer que ciertos individuos cada vez más las cuentas bancarias de los altos impuestos y el alto costo de cambiar de combustibles fósiles.

Gracias de nuevo por sus comentarios.

Perdone mi español como usted probablemente le puede decir no estoy muy versado en el idioma.

Muy bien redactada sobre la climategate el “fiasco. No es nada más que una estratagema para ciertos individuos y / o políticos, como Al Gore, para sacar provecho de las reclamaciones falsas.

Nuestro país está en extrema necesidad de puestos de trabajo ahora mismo y no un plan para hacer que ciertos individuos cada vez más las cuentas bancarias de los altos impuestos y el alto costo de cambiar de combustibles fósiles.

Gracias de nuevo por sus comentarios.

It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

I’m also concerned about the program expanding! I hear that Virgin Mobile will be starting up their own version of this, using taxpayer dollars. WTF???

Is this really a bad thing?

Not really. This is really actually a very good example of a public-private initiative.

The money has been collected by 25+ years and was applied to landlines. Under the Bush Administration, the program began to include cheapo, low-end cell phones (the ones that sell for under $10 at gas stations and discount stores).

TracFone provides the phones and minutes, and the recipients can buy more as needed.

I could see being upset if they gave away cars, iPhones or cable TV, but Tracfones are hardly luxury items and it’s not worth getting worked up about, truly.

The best way to get a good understanding of what the book is about is to read it in sequence, using the “Chapte by Chapter” page on the right.

These are all Muslims, believing in the same stupid and deadly nonsense, following orders like sheep with very little understanding… How is it diverse.

And another thing – I amd personally offended when Islam is referred to as “Abrahamic” faith. It is anything but.

They have a personality called “Ibrahim”, who bears little or no resemblence to the Biblical Abraham.

Islam is not “Abrahamic”. It is barbaric and dangerous.

See my post of today regarding the Hajj

http://th3cow.wordpress.com