How does that make any sense at all? People who deny that the holocaust ever happened are plainly ignoring the facts. Much like people who are denying that global warming is happening, despite the fact that there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that it is.
Hmm. At least that's one possible explanation of the comparison he was making between my "global warming deniers" phrase and the holocaust. I can't think of what else he might possibly have been referring to. I guess he was comparing it to the phrase "holocaust denier". I wonder if he knows that the word deny actually has a long history that predates Nazi Germany by hundreds of years, and that most of us are capable of using the word without thinking of Nazis or the holocaust. He probably does and was just trying to troll me (alas, successfully).
RealClimate has an in-depth discussion of the Usoskin et al. paper (as well as a link to the original PDF), if you're interested. The comments are often as good as the original article on RealClimate. Here's a relevant excerpt from the original article:
Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
Here are a few interesting points that might or might not be discussed at that site: (a) We've currently just passed through a solar minimum (in the 11-year cycle), yet we are still setting record highs. (b) Around 1957 maximum we were in a local minimum of temperatures. This is best explained by the presence of particulates in the atmosphere due to pollution problems.
The major problem with solar forcing enthusiasts is that they ignore the fact that the variations in solar output simply aren't large enough in magnitude to account for the observed recent warming trend.
That and the fact that we just came out of a sunspot minimum and yet are still experiencing record temperatures.
The fact that you use the same language that is associated with the holocaust shows the irrationality of your side of the subject.
Really? First of all, I had no idea that Nazis were global warming deniers or accused others of it. Are you trying to Godwin the thread? Secondly, I use the phrase precisely. There are global warming skeptics (those who are truly undecided) and global warming deniers (those who are trying to spread FUD). There's a difference. You're the one who's being irrational by dragging in the holocause. Seriously, what are you thinking?
I see, so suggesting that a scientific theory might not be true is wrong?
Depends on one's motivation. I've suggested that the Schwarzschild solution to GR might be wrong, but I wasn't doing it in an attempt to spread FUD. Is it wrong to moderate someone as a troll when you suspect their only motivation is to spread misinformation?
You mean he actually proposed that a certain event might be occuring for different reasons than what you believe and cited his sources! Yes, that is quite unacceptable!
No, he proposed that several different events might be responsible, did enough research to cite sources, yet mysteriously didn't do enough research to know what was wrong with his sources.
Suggest that either it's too late to do anything about it, or that we can't do anything about it because others (e.g., China) won't do anything about it. The somewhat funny part is that these strategies actually work against each other, except for the main point - to sow confusion and doubt.
The more you try to shout down and silence people, the more it looks like you have something to hide. You'd be much better off just stating scientific fact linked from solid resources then subtly trying to compare people who don't believe in global warming to Nazi's.
Again with the Nazis? I'm not the one trying to Godwin the thread. How is that last point "shouting down" or "silencing people"? If I was trying to silence him, then why did I address every single last one of his points (see my response to him, where I also linked from solid resources)? (Seriously, where the heck are you dragging up this Nazi stuff from? Do you have a fetish or something?)
People modded it down because it at least seems to be deliberate misinformation. Deliberate because the amount of effort that appears to go into it suggests someone who could have taken the time to answer the very questions he raised. This is one of the typical strategies of global warming deniers. Try to spread doubt amongst those who aren't capable of understanding the science. You'll notice that his post followed the typical formula to a T.
Suggest that global warming might not even be happening. That was his first point. Note the careful use of the phrase "appears to be".
Suggest that it's due to factors besides humans. Most of his post was geared towards that strategy.
Suggest that either it's too late to do anything about it, or that we can't do anything about it because others (e.g., China) won't do anything about it.
The somewhat funny part is that these strategies actually work against each other, except for the main point - to sow confusion and doubt.
I guess the reason I find them more annoying is the same reason I get more annoyed when Democrats do stuff that harms the environment. You expect that from certain Republicans (no, not all of them), but when Democrats do it, I feel betrayed. Same thing here, sort of. When people say, oh, how can anyone deny global warming when it's 110 out today, or when there were so many hurricanes? They're just paving the road for equally ignorant people who say, how can anyone believe in global warming when it's 10 below zero today, and when there were very few tropical storms (although insignificantly slightly above the 1950-2000 average)?
First, it's about the basic science. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. CO2 levels are 50% higher than they've been in at least the last 800,000 years. We're measurably responsible for those increases. Absorbing infrared radiation leads to a higher thermal equilibrium.
Secondly, it's about trends. Not a single day. Not even a single year. The hottest 10 years on record have happened in the last 10 years (1997-2006).
At first, I thought, hey, maybe you're just misguided. Maybe you are. However, here's the problem with that theory. You've taken the time to get a lot of different links together and post them here. That suggests that you're capable of doing decent searches. Therefore, you should already know what's wrong with your claims. Now, just to answer your objections (so you don't claim I'm "avoiding" the "facts"):
(1) Um, yeah. Change that to the world is (appears to be? really?) getting warmer, and this agrees with the basic science done during the 60's prior to sophisticated computer models, and during a slowing down (and slight retreat) of global warming due to increased particulates in the atmosphere.
(2) True, temperature measures are better now than they have been in the past. Current temperature measures (over the last 100+ years) allow us to correlate temperatures with other proxies. These give us not only ways of estimating temperatures from prior eras, but also to get an idea of how much error we should expect in such estimates.
(3) Interesting theory. Of course, no one credible is postulating this theory. Why do you think that is? Also, you're explaining the warming after the fact. See #1.
(4) Gee, what could cause Jupiter to get warmer over multiple years? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Jupiter orbits the sun once every 12 years? Of course, it's actually a little more complicated than that. However, I suggest you leave the explanations to people who actually know what they're talking about.
(5) Of course, Mars annual cycle is closer to ours. And we've been observing it for a very short time. Nevertheless, your questions about that have also been addressed.
(6) Yes, livestock (those being raised by us, specifically) are largely responsible for increases in methane, and we should reduce our dependence on them as well. Methane also is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The only positive is that methane has a shorter "shelf life", in that it gets reabsorbed into nature much quicker than carbon dioxide. What's with this shell game, anyway? Are you trying to say that you shouldn't blame humans for CO2 increasing global temperatures because we're also responsible for methane increasing global temperatures?
(7) And, no it is not possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena. We've ruled that out. It's like if someone were shot (and died immediately afterwards) and you said, hey, other people have died from natural causes, and other people have been shot and lived. Why is everyone assuming the bullet killed the guy?
(8) Oh, and let's not do anything because China won't? Please. That's tired. Yes, China needs to also get their act together. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get our act together.
My wife and I consumed 143 kwh last month (31 days). So, that comes out to 4.6 kwh/day, which is definitely a bit more than my original assumption/claim of less than 1. However, during a typical summer month (when I have the air conditioner on), I used 276 kwh. I really should look closer at those bills. Although that bill was only about $13 more, that's a whole lot of extra power for only running the AC. (Also, the dollar figure I gave you previously was for my gas bill, not my electric bill. The electric bills were about $20 and $33, respectively.)
From what I've since read, I could probably generate 150 watts for a couple hours. I suspect that if I paced myself, and didn't have to worry about going to work, I might be able to generate 1 kwh/day (e.g., 10 hours at 100 watts) - with practice.
Of course, all of this is assuming that the bike is at least close to the most efficient one could do. I wonder how much power one could generate doing bench or leg presses. (Obviously one would generate more power doing leg presses than bench presses.) If I lifted 250 kg (550 pounds) for 50 centimeters (straight up), that's 1,225 Joules. Assuming (poorly) that I could convert this to electricity at 100% efficiency, then 100 such lifts (no easy task) would generate 122,500 Joules. That equals about 0.034 kwh. Back to the drawing board.
I paid $17.72 last month. Part of that ($5?) is a monthly service fee that has nothing to do with my electricity usage. So, perhaps $12-13/month goes to my kwh usage. (When I first moved into the apartment, we only had to pay the electricity for the air conditioner. Since I wasn't using it during the late fall/winter/early spring, the only fee I had was the flat monthly charge. I determined it was cheaper to pay the disconnect/reconnect fees once a year than to keep paying those monthly charges.)
I should also point out that we don't have a washer/dryer in our unit, but there is a common one that we use. I'm currently not counting that, either.
So, for sake of argument (and so I can do some math), let's assume that my wife and I use 5 kwh/day. If I were to maintain 150 watts for 24 hours (no sleep), that'd only get me to 3.6 kwh/day. However, if my wife had her own machine, also generating 150 watts, then we'd only have to work for 17.67 hours/day, leaving 6.33 hours for sleep. (We'd eat on the bikes, of course.) Just think what great shape we'd be in! Of course, we might need to use more air conditioning...
My grandparents had a treadmill that didn't use electricity, however. Theoretically, one could make a treadmill generate electricity (presumably using an incline), but it wouldn't be as efficient as a stationary cycle or other device would be.
I live in an apartment (unfortunately making the devices somewhat impractical in the first place) and walk to work. Also, I should point out that when I'm talking about "my" electrical needs, I'm referring to the ones I actually pay for - i.e., I'm not counting the power I use when I'm at work. At home, I rarely use air conditioning. Probably the single biggest consumer of electricity in my apartment is my refrigerator. I've forgotten how many kilowatt-hours I tend to use in a month, but I believe it's less than 1/day (IIRC, I use about 20 KwH/month - but your figure of 20/day means I'm going to have to look that up when I get home).
Also, doing a little Google search, I found a bike that claims to generate 400 watts, and a pedal device that claims to generate up to 1000 watts. Of course, I have no idea how sustainable those powers are.
I suspect that if I tried that myself, I'd end with nothing more than a bruised ego (and possibly other bruised/damaged items). However, I do have a cousin who's pretty good with electronics... (I understand the theory just fine. It's the practice I ain't so good at.)
Now that the Democrats control the House and Senate over here, I suspect we'll be given a lesson in vetoes very shortly. However, given his low approval rating, I look forward to more than one of his vetoes getting overridden.
I've worked out the math before, and a serious workout could generate a significant amount of electrical power. I'm a marathon runner, and the amount of electricity I might generate from my daily exercise routine would probably generate all of my electrical needs for that day, with a little extra left over. Granted, just as with ethanol, there's still a question of supplying me with calories.
The veto should be used when a reasonable bill contains bullshit riders; the congress has a particularly distasteful way of sliding completely irrelevant legislation inside other legislation they know will pass, such as military finding, that then passes regardless of merit (and it usually has none, that's why it gets inserted in other bills w/o lube.)
Man, could you imagine if we got a president who refused to sign any bills that contained riders (good or not) that had little or nothing to do with said bill? That'd be a sight! He/she could just say, "I'm not signing any bills that contain unrelated riders," and then keep that promise. Sure, it'd result in government getting "shut down" for a while (not entirely a bad thing in and of itself), but it's hard to imagine that the president would be the one getting the backlash from that. Far too many US citizens have no idea how many stupid riders are added to our bills.
Other than the riders, most of what you cite are examples where the president is deliberately complicit. My question (which you did partially answer with the riders) is centered more around a case where the president chose not to veto a bill that he disagreed with. The initial premise, afterall, was that the president had little to do with what bills get passed. Surely this is true if the president actually agrees with Congress (e.g., PATRIOT ACT), but if the president disagrees, the veto can be used either directly or as a bargaining tool.
Typically, the choice for a new generator boils down to nuclear or coal. When certain environmental groups (of which I am a member) block the construction of a new nuclear plant, it often results in a new coal plant being built instead. The result is that instead of having our nuclear waste in a known location here on the ground, we end up spewing radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
Although I'd love to see us not need nuclear fission power, for the time being it's the better alternative.
Not that I disagree with nuclear (from a pragmatic point-of-view), but I'd like to see more self-generating forms of electricity. Things like exercise gyms that double as power generators. That way I could convert my eco-guilt into a strong exercise regimen.
The other thing about nuclear waste is that you know where it is, you don't just go pumping it out into the atmosphere and hope for the best.
Unless that nuclear "waste" is coming from coal burning plants, of course. Then you are literally pumping it into the atmosphere and hoping for the best.
This page has a table that shows the number of vetoes each president has made (including a surprisingly high number of pocket vetoes). You'll notice that those numbers are quite high amongst some of our more respected presidents of late (Reagan: 78, Eisenhower: 181, Truman: 250, FDR: 635). Of course you said, "presidents aren't likely to use it when it needs to be used", so perhaps the emphasis is on "when it needs to be used". Do you have any examples in mind? (I'm not disputing your point, I just can't say I've paid that much attention to it.)
I have no idea how sarcastic you're being, but judging from other comments you've made, you're not from the US, so I suppose it's not impossible that you're being serious.
In that case, I'll point out that the veto is defined by our constitution, so whether or not it's a breech of the separation of powers, it's definitely an intended one. In addition to the regular veto (where the president returns the bill unsigned to Congress within 10 days), there's also the pocket veto, which is far trickier. The last time a pocket veto was used was by Bill Clinton in 2000 (3 times!). Bush Sr. and Reagan also used pocket vetoes.
They have almost no domestic power; they can't make law, and they can't do a whole lot to stop law from passing unless it was marginal in the first place.
Don't underestimate the power of the veto. It takes a 2/3 override to get around that, and that has happened fairly infrequently in history.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. At least that's one possible explanation of the comparison he was making between my "global warming deniers" phrase and the holocaust. I can't think of what else he might possibly have been referring to. I guess he was comparing it to the phrase "holocaust denier". I wonder if he knows that the word deny actually has a long history that predates Nazi Germany by hundreds of years, and that most of us are capable of using the word without thinking of Nazis or the holocaust. He probably does and was just trying to troll me (alas, successfully).
RealClimate has an in-depth discussion of the Usoskin et al. paper (as well as a link to the original PDF), if you're interested. The comments are often as good as the original article on RealClimate. Here's a relevant excerpt from the original article:
Here are a few interesting points that might or might not be discussed at that site: (a) We've currently just passed through a solar minimum (in the 11-year cycle), yet we are still setting record highs. (b) Around 1957 maximum we were in a local minimum of temperatures. This is best explained by the presence of particulates in the atmosphere due to pollution problems.
Yes, we have.
Really? First of all, I had no idea that Nazis were global warming deniers or accused others of it. Are you trying to Godwin the thread? Secondly, I use the phrase precisely. There are global warming skeptics (those who are truly undecided) and global warming deniers (those who are trying to spread FUD). There's a difference. You're the one who's being irrational by dragging in the holocause. Seriously, what are you thinking?
Depends on one's motivation. I've suggested that the Schwarzschild solution to GR might be wrong, but I wasn't doing it in an attempt to spread FUD. Is it wrong to moderate someone as a troll when you suspect their only motivation is to spread misinformation?
No, he proposed that several different events might be responsible, did enough research to cite sources, yet mysteriously didn't do enough research to know what was wrong with his sources.
Again with the Nazis? I'm not the one trying to Godwin the thread. How is that last point "shouting down" or "silencing people"? If I was trying to silence him, then why did I address every single last one of his points (see my response to him, where I also linked from solid resources)? (Seriously, where the heck are you dragging up this Nazi stuff from? Do you have a fetish or something?)
People modded it down because it at least seems to be deliberate misinformation. Deliberate because the amount of effort that appears to go into it suggests someone who could have taken the time to answer the very questions he raised. This is one of the typical strategies of global warming deniers. Try to spread doubt amongst those who aren't capable of understanding the science. You'll notice that his post followed the typical formula to a T.
The somewhat funny part is that these strategies actually work against each other, except for the main point - to sow confusion and doubt.
I guess the reason I find them more annoying is the same reason I get more annoyed when Democrats do stuff that harms the environment. You expect that from certain Republicans (no, not all of them), but when Democrats do it, I feel betrayed. Same thing here, sort of. When people say, oh, how can anyone deny global warming when it's 110 out today, or when there were so many hurricanes? They're just paving the road for equally ignorant people who say, how can anyone believe in global warming when it's 10 below zero today, and when there were very few tropical storms (although insignificantly slightly above the 1950-2000 average)?
First, it's about the basic science. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. CO2 levels are 50% higher than they've been in at least the last 800,000 years. We're measurably responsible for those increases. Absorbing infrared radiation leads to a higher thermal equilibrium.
Secondly, it's about trends. Not a single day. Not even a single year. The hottest 10 years on record have happened in the last 10 years (1997-2006).
At first, I thought, hey, maybe you're just misguided. Maybe you are. However, here's the problem with that theory. You've taken the time to get a lot of different links together and post them here. That suggests that you're capable of doing decent searches. Therefore, you should already know what's wrong with your claims. Now, just to answer your objections (so you don't claim I'm "avoiding" the "facts"):
(1) Um, yeah. Change that to the world is (appears to be? really?) getting warmer, and this agrees with the basic science done during the 60's prior to sophisticated computer models, and during a slowing down (and slight retreat) of global warming due to increased particulates in the atmosphere.(2) True, temperature measures are better now than they have been in the past. Current temperature measures (over the last 100+ years) allow us to correlate temperatures with other proxies. These give us not only ways of estimating temperatures from prior eras, but also to get an idea of how much error we should expect in such estimates.
(3) Interesting theory. Of course, no one credible is postulating this theory. Why do you think that is? Also, you're explaining the warming after the fact. See #1.
(4) Gee, what could cause Jupiter to get warmer over multiple years? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Jupiter orbits the sun once every 12 years? Of course, it's actually a little more complicated than that. However, I suggest you leave the explanations to people who actually know what they're talking about.
(5) Of course, Mars annual cycle is closer to ours. And we've been observing it for a very short time. Nevertheless, your questions about that have also been addressed.
(6) Yes, livestock (those being raised by us, specifically) are largely responsible for increases in methane, and we should reduce our dependence on them as well. Methane also is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The only positive is that methane has a shorter "shelf life", in that it gets reabsorbed into nature much quicker than carbon dioxide. What's with this shell game, anyway? Are you trying to say that you shouldn't blame humans for CO2 increasing global temperatures because we're also responsible for methane increasing global temperatures?
(7) And, no it is not possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena. We've ruled that out. It's like if someone were shot (and died immediately afterwards) and you said, hey, other people have died from natural causes, and other people have been shot and lived. Why is everyone assuming the bullet killed the guy?
(8) Oh, and let's not do anything because China won't? Please. That's tired. Yes, China needs to also get their act together. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get our act together.
My wife and I consumed 143 kwh last month (31 days). So, that comes out to 4.6 kwh/day, which is definitely a bit more than my original assumption/claim of less than 1. However, during a typical summer month (when I have the air conditioner on), I used 276 kwh. I really should look closer at those bills. Although that bill was only about $13 more, that's a whole lot of extra power for only running the AC. (Also, the dollar figure I gave you previously was for my gas bill, not my electric bill. The electric bills were about $20 and $33, respectively.)
From what I've since read, I could probably generate 150 watts for a couple hours. I suspect that if I paced myself, and didn't have to worry about going to work, I might be able to generate 1 kwh/day (e.g., 10 hours at 100 watts) - with practice.
Of course, all of this is assuming that the bike is at least close to the most efficient one could do. I wonder how much power one could generate doing bench or leg presses. (Obviously one would generate more power doing leg presses than bench presses.) If I lifted 250 kg (550 pounds) for 50 centimeters (straight up), that's 1,225 Joules. Assuming (poorly) that I could convert this to electricity at 100% efficiency, then 100 such lifts (no easy task) would generate 122,500 Joules. That equals about 0.034 kwh. Back to the drawing board.
Do you have kids?
I paid $17.72 last month. Part of that ($5?) is a monthly service fee that has nothing to do with my electricity usage. So, perhaps $12-13/month goes to my kwh usage. (When I first moved into the apartment, we only had to pay the electricity for the air conditioner. Since I wasn't using it during the late fall/winter/early spring, the only fee I had was the flat monthly charge. I determined it was cheaper to pay the disconnect/reconnect fees once a year than to keep paying those monthly charges.)
I should also point out that we don't have a washer/dryer in our unit, but there is a common one that we use. I'm currently not counting that, either.
So, for sake of argument (and so I can do some math), let's assume that my wife and I use 5 kwh/day. If I were to maintain 150 watts for 24 hours (no sleep), that'd only get me to 3.6 kwh/day. However, if my wife had her own machine, also generating 150 watts, then we'd only have to work for 17.67 hours/day, leaving 6.33 hours for sleep. (We'd eat on the bikes, of course.) Just think what great shape we'd be in! Of course, we might need to use more air conditioning...
My grandparents had a treadmill that didn't use electricity, however. Theoretically, one could make a treadmill generate electricity (presumably using an incline), but it wouldn't be as efficient as a stationary cycle or other device would be.
I live in an apartment (unfortunately making the devices somewhat impractical in the first place) and walk to work. Also, I should point out that when I'm talking about "my" electrical needs, I'm referring to the ones I actually pay for - i.e., I'm not counting the power I use when I'm at work. At home, I rarely use air conditioning. Probably the single biggest consumer of electricity in my apartment is my refrigerator. I've forgotten how many kilowatt-hours I tend to use in a month, but I believe it's less than 1/day (IIRC, I use about 20 KwH/month - but your figure of 20/day means I'm going to have to look that up when I get home).
Also, doing a little Google search, I found a bike that claims to generate 400 watts, and a pedal device that claims to generate up to 1000 watts. Of course, I have no idea how sustainable those powers are.
I suspect that if I tried that myself, I'd end with nothing more than a bruised ego (and possibly other bruised/damaged items). However, I do have a cousin who's pretty good with electronics... (I understand the theory just fine. It's the practice I ain't so good at.)
Now that the Democrats control the House and Senate over here, I suspect we'll be given a lesson in vetoes very shortly. However, given his low approval rating, I look forward to more than one of his vetoes getting overridden.
I've worked out the math before, and a serious workout could generate a significant amount of electrical power. I'm a marathon runner, and the amount of electricity I might generate from my daily exercise routine would probably generate all of my electrical needs for that day, with a little extra left over. Granted, just as with ethanol, there's still a question of supplying me with calories.
Man, could you imagine if we got a president who refused to sign any bills that contained riders (good or not) that had little or nothing to do with said bill? That'd be a sight! He/she could just say, "I'm not signing any bills that contain unrelated riders," and then keep that promise. Sure, it'd result in government getting "shut down" for a while (not entirely a bad thing in and of itself), but it's hard to imagine that the president would be the one getting the backlash from that. Far too many US citizens have no idea how many stupid riders are added to our bills.
Other than the riders, most of what you cite are examples where the president is deliberately complicit. My question (which you did partially answer with the riders) is centered more around a case where the president chose not to veto a bill that he disagreed with. The initial premise, afterall, was that the president had little to do with what bills get passed. Surely this is true if the president actually agrees with Congress (e.g., PATRIOT ACT), but if the president disagrees, the veto can be used either directly or as a bargaining tool.
Typically, the choice for a new generator boils down to nuclear or coal. When certain environmental groups (of which I am a member) block the construction of a new nuclear plant, it often results in a new coal plant being built instead. The result is that instead of having our nuclear waste in a known location here on the ground, we end up spewing radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
Although I'd love to see us not need nuclear fission power, for the time being it's the better alternative.
Not that I disagree with nuclear (from a pragmatic point-of-view), but I'd like to see more self-generating forms of electricity. Things like exercise gyms that double as power generators. That way I could convert my eco-guilt into a strong exercise regimen.
This page has a table that shows the number of vetoes each president has made (including a surprisingly high number of pocket vetoes). You'll notice that those numbers are quite high amongst some of our more respected presidents of late (Reagan: 78, Eisenhower: 181, Truman: 250, FDR: 635). Of course you said, "presidents aren't likely to use it when it needs to be used", so perhaps the emphasis is on "when it needs to be used". Do you have any examples in mind? (I'm not disputing your point, I just can't say I've paid that much attention to it.)
I have no idea how sarcastic you're being, but judging from other comments you've made, you're not from the US, so I suppose it's not impossible that you're being serious.
In that case, I'll point out that the veto is defined by our constitution, so whether or not it's a breech of the separation of powers, it's definitely an intended one. In addition to the regular veto (where the president returns the bill unsigned to Congress within 10 days), there's also the pocket veto, which is far trickier. The last time a pocket veto was used was by Bill Clinton in 2000 (3 times!). Bush Sr. and Reagan also used pocket vetoes.
I couldn't agree more with what you and ifdef are saying about using it as a stepping stone. It's an excellent resource in multiple fields.