WHAT DO YOU NO?

As you educated, disspassionate readers well know, the Al Gore CO2 believers have waged an all out war on good, decent, honest scientists.
Desperate to keep their cash cow putting out the cream, these jerks are FOIA'ing the heck out of these scientists.
The greedy have highjacked the scientists science. I made a committment to help get it back, and I intend to keep that committment!
It makes me sad/sick/angry! Such un-just treatment shouldn't be dished out to the meanest of dogs.
I saw how the Conservation Easement scammers brought harm to a respected friend.
The same kind of ammo is being used on these scientists.
I will NOT sit by idly and watch this happen to them!!!
Just reporting " facts and truth" - will expose the wrong doers and bring justice for the good guys.
Following are exchanges wherein a Mr. Arthur Smith challenged the credibility of Dr. Richard Lindzen.
It sounded as though my long time dream, of getting climate change/global warming debated in the open, was about to come true!
It started with my emailing Mr. Smith the offer...
There's much more to post...but this is good for starters.
Your comments are welcome, as this may be the only debate we'll ever get on whether the climate is caused by man or Mother Nature.
Roni
_____________________________________________________
OK. Here's what we can do. The "man makes climate change" believers choose one from their crew, and those whose findings claim "nature makes climate change" choose one from their crew, and I'll set up the debate at Casselman's in NoDo Denver.
Simple. Each side pick several dates, shoot them to me, and I'll work it out.
No worries. Nothing to hide on either side, so the debate will be pain free, easy to implement, and the public will finally have opportunity to see, listen, learn...then decide.
Fair?
Send the dates to me.
All being sound of mind and reasonable folks, I look forward to this wonderful event.
Thank you. Roni
_____________________________________________
An email to friends:
This is where we stand thus far.
While I may be dead wrong, I think these guys have good hearts and really want to do good things.
Anyway, that's the premise within which I choose to continue working; until we do get a good, healthy debate at Casselman's.
Intend to also get ahold of Brooke Shields and help her. Many are going crash and burn as more truths come out.
We need to be there with gentle hands to lift them.
Roni
_______________________
---- Original Message -----
From: Arthur Smith
To: Roni Bell
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: "debate"
When my children are grown and I have reached retirement age as Dr. Lindzen has (though he is still employed) I may be able to afford 3 days off work and away from family; I cannot do that now. I am also not interested in drumming up "sponsors" for a debate forum that I do not believe is productive - as I said, verbal debates allow for essentially no fact-checking, essential for scientific discussion. Also you made no mention of video recording and webcasting which I requested - perhaps your item (b) includes that, but it's not clear. In any case, without the compensation for lost work days it's a non-starter.
But I'll forward to the Chicago folks and see what they have to say.
__________________________________________________________
I surely do understand. No apologies or explanations necessary.
It's not easy trying to do volunteer work - plus raise children.
Particularly in today's economic straights.
Yes - there's no problem with video recordings. I think I got a bit confused on webcasting "before" the event? Maybe that's why I left that out...hoping to discuss later.
We'll be happy to wait to find out how the Chicago folks respond.
Thank you so much Arthur, for your efforts. Roni
_________________________________________________________
From: Arthur Smith
Date: April 28, 2010 10:17:50 PM CDT
To: Ray Pierrehumbert , David Archer
Subject: Fwd: "debate"
Either of you interested in a debate with Richard Lindzen? I have declined this but promised to forward... :)
Arthur Smith
_____________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: David Archer
To: RoniBell@msn.com
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:17 AM
Subject: Fwd: "debate"
I personally would decline such an offer to debate Lindzen, not because I am unwilling to engage with the truth, but because I am unwilling to engage with a liar.
David Archer
__________________________________________________________
On Apr 29, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Roni Bell wrote:
Dear David,
Thank you for your quick response and candor.
If you should change your mind, please do not hesitate to let me know.
And if you know someone who would be able to debate Dr. Lindzen, I'd appreciate your contacting them as graciously as Arthur Smith did you.
GNL is trying to clean up a bit of a mess here, and we need all the help we can get.
Roni Bell Sylvester
____________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: David Archer
To: Roni Bell
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: "debate"
What kind of a mess?
David
____________________________________________________________
On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Roni Bell wrote:
Dear David,
Thank you for asking about "mess." Better give you a qualifier.
As a Mom I looked at disagreements between my children, as a "bit of a mess to clean up."
When adults disagree - not unlike children - it's messy.
More so today, because we buried our manners somewhere along the way.
A habit developed over 44 years of parenting, is to get disagreeing parties together.
Insisting they face one another, my children were expected to politely "stick to their story," and not get side-tracked with name calling, finger pointing or any other ugly behavior that exacerbates - instead of beautifying -the situation.
The focus stayed on figuring out who was most responsible for making the mess, then helping them learn how to clean up after themselves.
If it was an honest accident, everyone pitched in and took care of it.
About 55 years ago, I had my first and last physical fight with a person. It involved my ripping off all the buttons on another girl's coat. Full of myself, I went home and bragged to Mom. Instead of giving me an “atta girl,” she said, “Ronita. You march right over to her house, ask her for the coat, bring it home, sew those buttons back on, and return it to her!”
That was the longest darn walk I ever made. But about five miles, five hours, five sore fingers and five hundred tears later, I learned a lesson of a lifetime; never make a mess unless you're prepared to clean it up! Alone!
I'd like to think I passed that lesson on to my four.
Today, they're pretty darn good adult neighbors!
You’d like them. I know I sure do!
As volunteer editor for Good Neighbor Law for nearly 4 years, I’ve seen a huge mess develop over the disagreement as to what makes climate change.
What's the mess? The big, sloppy and inhumane policies that are being made out of air.
Surely you'll agree that disagreeing parties should, in the spirit of doing good, get together and publicly debate until all the lies, truths and facts are on open display.
In order to achieve this, those who believe man-makes climate change will have to steel up and go face to face with those whose findings show nature makes climate change. Sure, there'll probably be tears, sore fingers and many miles for them to walk, but, that unselfish act will serve as a beautiful example of goodness that will give millions reason to likewise...do good.
We should enjoin recommendation to policy makers, they stop any policy making connected to climate change, until such debate is finished. After which they'll have information enough to decide whether or not to proceed.
Anyway, now you know what “mess” is, and what needs to be done to clean it up.
Thank you again for asking. Didn’t mean to write a tome, but it sure felt good. Roni
cc: My children
____________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: David Archer
To: Roni Bell
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: "debate"
Hello Roni,
I could have used a more polite word than liar, but I would have still tried to convey the point that it is wrong to mislead the non-scientific audience. Lindzen would not be there to talk to me, he'd be there to pitch to the audience. Honesty is a requisite for conversation as far as I am concerned, and Lindzen has crossed the line long ago. regards, David
_________________________________________________________
Original Message --
From: Roni Bell
To: David Archer
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: "debate"
Hi David,
Wow! That was fast! Thank you.
Yes, I understand your concerns.
I get cotton tongued when met by someone who presents themselves contraire to my way of going.
But, like riding a horse across water, I refuse to program myself...therefore program the horse...to be afraid.
That's when wrecks happen. So I just take a deep breath, and make darn sure I'm sincerely relaxed, so the horse will relax and carry us both safely across the water.
If you did reconsider a debate with Lindzen, please be assured GNL would take every measure to keep everyone's eyes on the desired end result; to put all the truths, lies and facts out on open display.
I have great faith in most people's ability to make healthy decisions once they have all the information.
Thank you David.
Gotta get to work outside now. Roni
____________________________________________________________
I am not going to debate Richard Lindzen, the man is a snake. period. respectfully, David
_______________________________________________________
5/2/10
Good Morning David,
I respect that.
And as you'll read, I've gone beyond that...and into all of us working together on the common cause to stop the greedy from capitalizing off of climate - the "un-settled" science.
Come to our farm, where we work in good cheer while bringing health back to America.
Kind of like working in ER, where a sense of humor helps keep ones sanity while dealing with the tragedies.
Please check my facebook (Roni Bell Sylvester).
You'll see a photo I took from my kitchen window this AM. Yes, I know there are manure piles in our corral. I clean them up constantly. BUT - I choose to "see" the beauty of the horses in the field: Note - they're looking at wild turkeys.
Thank you David. Please stay in touch. Roni
____________________________________________
Dear Roni,
thanks for cc'ing me on this. I'd like to just comment on the central issue you raise:
"those who believe man-makes climate change will have to steel up and go face to face with those whose findings show nature makes climate change"
If you asked Prof. Lindzen or any of us whether we "believe man makes climate change", we would all agree, "Yes". If you asked any of us whether we believe "nature makes climate change" we would also agree, "Yes". There would be no debate on those questions. The central question is not whether man changes climate; it is a quantitative question: how much? Dr. Lindzen continues to assert with great certainty that the value of climate "sensitivity", whether to human-caused or natural changes, is very low. The remaining 97% or so of climate scientists, on the other hand, are much less certain about the value, but have mountains of evidence showing it cannot be as low as Dr. Lindzen asserts.
There has been plenty of "face to face" debate on this in the scientific literature and at scientific conferences over past decades, the normal place for such quantitative debates. If you really wish to watch a face-to-face debate-format discussion on the subject, there was one held just this past February in Australia, between Christopher Monckton and Tim Lambert (both amateurs on the subject, but able to communicate well) - which is conveniently viewable on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmnixH2_zzM&feature=related
If you feel an urgent need to hold an event with such a structure, you could just show that full debate to your audience, and I think they would come away with a good appreciation of the basic facts on the matter, as you suggest is the important thing.
Best wishes, Arthur Smith
_________________________________________________________
Note to friends: "I haven't had to time answer Arthur's thoughtful note...but shall tomorrow. I have no doubt this excellent exchange of ideas will lead to healthy benefits for Americans. Please stay tuned..."
Thank you, Roni 5:50 pm 4/29/10
----- Original Message -----
From: Roni Bell
To: Arthur Smith
Cc: rtp@geosci.uchicago.edu ; d-archer@uchicago.edu
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:57 PM
Subject: Possibility of a debate...
Good Evening Arthur,
As you can see by the following, I had our webmaster post this on GNL and LAW.
I love your thoughtful response, and promise to respond in kind tomorrow.
Too much work outside, - plus frankly, my eyeballs are burning from being glued to computer earlier.
Thank you, thank you!
You're a good man. Roni
_______________________
Good Afternoon Arthur,

Once again, I'm ridiculously behind on answering you.
Besides, your thoughtful note was deserving of more than a flash answer.
And, I write awful slow.
Thank you for the Lambert/Monckton video. It led to my scan of many others, a re-reading your words, and review of scientists all over the place.
I started to write you, stopped...re-thought...started again...stopped...thought some more. Something bugged me about all this, but I just couldn't put my finger on it; until now.
Here it is:
The scientific community's general take on climate change, is vastly different from that of the non-scientific community.
You said it best: "If you asked Prof. Lindzen or any of us whether we "believe man makes climate change", we would all agree, "Yes". If you asked any of us whether we believe "nature makes climate change" we would also agree, "Yes". There would be no debate on those questions."
Therefore, I feel quite comfortable staking the claim: The scientific community agrees on that which is most important: "Science is never settled."
Contrarily, the non-scientific community (Includes cap and trade pushers like former VP of the United States, principals in Goldman Sachs, Federal Reserve, United Nations, International Council For Local Environmental Initiatives, World Wildlife Foundation, Nature Conservancy and their partner politicians.) concluded for you, "The debate is over!"
These are the ones I take exception with: Not you, David Archer or Richard Lindzen.
Follow the money Arthur. None of you are enjoying financial gain from climate change.
Who is? The non-scientific community.
I made a boo boo thinking the claim "The debate is over!" initiated from scientists.
The joke's on us. You. I. The scientists.
The non-scientific community is making money off of us!
They've convinced everyone the debate is over.
They're telling us they are the only saviors left on earth, and that we must give them every cent we earn to save ourselves. But their unwillingness to die for our sins is kind of a big red flag.
They used you. Me. Most Americans.
They've taken conning into such a high level of art, they truly are con-"artists."
How do I figure this? Reflecting back on local history.
You see Arthur, once upon a time, Denver conjured its image in the likeness of Calgary.
Fancy restaurants with helli-pads popped up.
Shopping centers were named French names only the French could pronounce.
John King played war, shooting pretend cannon out his limo's sun roof.
Construed as "too hickey," the long time tradition of National Western's champion steer showcasing at The Brown Palace was ended.
Marvin Davis made millions as the king of "blue sky" promoters (allegedly, if it wasn't a dry hole, he'd cap it).
Dynasty was a hit.
Everyone was in the "Ol' biz."
Getting lenders a "little bit pregnant" was sport.
Takeover artists busied themselves finding marginally capitalized public companies and planting seeds of doubt ("Shhhh - heard Joe's filing bankruptcy.") about them.
Speaking out of both sides of their mouths, they'd whisper to one partner one thing, and promise another something else, until achieving their goal of fracturing them into the irretrievable smithereens of distrust.
On the sneak, they formed private companies, drove the public company's stock into the toilet, picked them up for pennies at the imminent bankruptcy hearings, then raised millions through pretend "R and D" needs knowing full well they'd never bring a product to market.
Promoting "bet'n on the come" deals became the proven road to unjust enrichment for cons.
Wall Street was building multiple "houses of cards."
There's an eery irony in that over twenty years ago, these takeovers were referred to as "green" takeovers.
When I reported a green takeover (A deal clearly violating a tonnage of SEC rulings.) to a Colorado SEC director, he responded with a shrug (Yes. I could see the shrug over the telephone.) and said nonchalantly, "Oh. That's done all the time. I'm busy! What do you want!"
While snorting coke, they'd wheel to their country clubs in their newly minted Cadillacs, companies, money and tuxedos, and pick up "a couple mill" from the other three in the foursome, before making the turn on the front nine where they could start the "Jack on the rocks."
You could see where the conned ones found out, for putters, drivers and nine irons dangled from fairway trees everywhere.
Some of the con-artists were caught and punished; then freed by Bill Clinton.
Some off shored and were never caught.
Doing business as usual, they still work hard to blur the definition of private property, and gain more ground for their "global" playground.
Al Gore has emerged as the best student in the class, "Art of Packaging and Selling Air."
In about 2003, someone asked if I thought Al Gore would run for president again. My answer? "Why would he do that? That's too piddly a position for that boy. He wants to be king of the world."
Gets me a little jumpy watching that projection unfold as a truism. Wish I was wrong!
While it would of been satisfying to personally punch the pudding out of these con-artists, free-enterprise and old laws usually sorted it all out pretty much OK thank you.
Until today; an environment where old laws aren't enforced, and new laws are made to control innocents and protect the bad.
Do you see the correlation between yesterday's min-scale cons in Denver, and today's global cons?
Do you see how con-artists use the scientific community to perpetuate their scams?
What really caught my attention about this whole climate matter, wasn't the science.
It was the politics!
Using climate, politicals and their con-artist partners (most often all in one the same), force unjust, unnecessary, extremely costly rules, conservation easements, monument and roadless designations, fast tracking listing of critters (ESA), regulations, taxes, laws and purchase mandates upon my community of resource providers.
To reiterate why the attack on resource providers? Their end game is no different that any war's end game: Control over boundaries...i.e. land and water. Because resource providers generally are the ones who own or have usage of said land and water, con-artists have targeted them forever!
They want Americans to become dependent on other countries for food, fuel, timber, fiber.
Why?
They're heavily invested and beholden to foreign global markets. Not domestic.
Google "Agenda 21." That'll give you an accurate view of the whole picture.
Working as one, these elected officials and con-artists went on the sneak and formed private companies (includes the beforementioned) to drive America's stock into the toilet.
You can figure out the rest.
Now you know some of the main reasons why I got engaged in the climate part of this political debacle, and why I'm unappeasable about the marketing of climate.
What can we do about this?
Stop allowing them to use us. We're not chumps. We need to stop acting like chumps.
Demand your representative stop making policies based on the "un-settled" science of climate.
Demand he or she rescind any policy already made based on the "un-settled" science of climate.
Demand they now use the time we pay them for, to identify recipients of tax dollars outside the scope of our state and federal constitutions, and insist said recipients return every cent. Today!
We need to re-connect with the tried and true good guys (Thank God they're still around.), and demand investigations of the real stinkers like Al Gore. It's obvious when un-covered, his scam will make Bernie Madoff's look like a pencil eraser heist.
How about it Arthur? And David? Richard? Ray?
Seriously. Come to our farm. Together we'll build a bridge over the man-made chasm, and mend our beloved broken America.
We must do this!
Why?
Our children.
They're in desperate need of honest to God decent, well mannered, moral, humble, honest, hardworking role models.
They deserve adults who "use their own so as not to harm another."
They deserve adults who will boldly embrace and teach them how the good neighbor way of going - is the best way of going. They deserve truth.
The scientific community can take the lead.
My fellow ladies and gentle countrymen will be with you all the way. Let's go! Thank you, Roni
_________________________________________________________|

Dear Roni,
I am shocked that you have posted my and other peoples' private emails to you in a public forum.
Your "Good Neighbor Law" site claims 3 principles:
First: no man is to deprive another of his property, or disturb him in enjoying it.
Second: every person is bound to take due care of his own property, so as the neglect thereof may not injure his neighbor
Third: all persons must so use their right, that they do not ... damage their neighbors' property.
Surely you know that all writings are property, owned by the person who created them? I work in the publishing industry, and if it was not for property rights in the written word we would very likely have been out of business long ago - or at least in a very different one.
The words I wrote to you were my property; my rights to enjoy those words included the ability to reuse them as I saw fit, to allow others to read them at times of my choosing, and so forth. You have deprived me of those rights in my property.
There are real legal implications, although at present I will not pursue any legal action against you for this, you should be aware of them.
I will however, no longer correspond with you unless your abuse of the property I have previously shared with you is in some way corrected or compensated for.
Some good neighbor you have proved to be. Arthur
_____________________________________________________
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Roni Bell wrote:
Dear Arthur,
Thank you for your note.
I made an incorrect assumption from the onset, in that I assumed you'd read my CC's and the Good Neighbor Law website - and would therefore realize that unless one informs me -"This is a private correspondance" - I post everything.
Emailers who request "personal or private" are never made public. This is where I made another incorrect assumption, in that you never indicated our emails as private.
For that matter, is anything in cyberspace private? And here comes yet another assumption; I assume not.
My emails have been randomly monitored, hacked and snooped at - well, it seems forever.
Some probably look at them when suffering insomina, knowing their boringness (is that a word?) will put them to sleep without drugs.
Being education driven, I believe giving people the whole "warts and all" picture, will help them make better decisions.
Withholding worthwhile information is unfair, unhealthy, unjust and unacceptable.
Unlike comments I've read over the years, I did not read yours as the least bit offensive. You conduct yourself like a gentleman, and make sincere efforts to present good information. That's why I chose you to communicate with.
You do use your words, in ways so as not to harm others. For that, you are respected!
I thought it of value for readers to see how individuals can present arguments in a civil manner - as we are doing.
Respective of legal action? Being transparent, not engaging in silly clandestine games, and getting truth and facts out enough to save even one life is worth whatever legal, humane action it takes.
This, I believe, is our common goal.
So let's continue to work together in that spirit. We're making good progress.
Thank you again Arthur.
Roni
PS Forgive me if you get the sense I'm visiting with one of my children; but in looking at your photo you do appear younger than all four of mine. I just can't help it.
CC: GNL Board, Contributing Educators, Dr. Lindzen and interested parties
___________________________________________________
No, I'm sorry, our discussion began in public on my website; it continued in private via email. There is clear legal precedent on the matter, an implied contract of confidentiality. You mentioned nothing about publishing my emails until I discovered from following your link that you had done so. That is a clear violation. This is really and truly my last communication with you on the matter unless you take the material off your website. I am not interested in any further dealing with people who break the law, particularly in such a hypocritical manner. Arthur Smith
___________________________________________________
Readers, please note:
Monday, May 3rd, Mr. Smith notified me of possible legal implications if I did not remove materials (written by him) from this website.
He warned of clear legal precedents regards implied contracts of confidentiality in email correspondence, explaining I was in clear violation.
He graciously offered not to pursue legal action, telling of his disinterest in dealing with people who break the law.
I appreciate his warnings, and consider them as a part of my continuing education.
Because I do not know the laws surrounding email correspondence, I yield to Mr. Smith's cautioning by removing his - and Dr. Archer's writes to me.
Any other request for comment removal will be honored.
To educate our readers on this important subject, I prevail upon legal minds well versed in cyberspace law to answer these questions:
a) When emails are exchanged between two parties - neither of whom are engaging in such on company computers or clock - who owns the copyright?
b) If neither party so notes, what are the implied contracts of confidentiality/private/personal?
c) What are the legal precedents surrounding emails?
Thank you, Roni
________________________________________________
Please note: I apologize for initially posting this on Good Neighbor Law. Unfortunately, being volunteer editor for so long generated a "posting habit" that kicked in over common sense. It was removed immediately.