Re: eWoodShop - Mission Bar Stool - Final glue-up

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:44:37 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998."
>
>Makes his veracity a little questionable, wouldn't you say?

One side has the Kochs, the other side has Soros. Parity?


>The quotes above are from :
>
>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
>
>which gives a very long list of the "independent" organizations funded by
>Exxon.

So if it's funded by an oil company, the result is automatically
falsified? Where's your evidence?

C'mon, Larry. Big companies fund myriad small businesses and research
projects every day, many with no expectation of their outcome. They
also donate to both Rep and Dem funds alike, at the same time. Like
it or lump it. <shrug>

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:57:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that, but I have seen similar reports of where reported
>>> observations were perhaps not discredited, but were at the very
>>> least countered by other observations that we exactly the opposite.
>>> Like I say - I don't really have a stand on the matter because too
>>> much of this goes back and forth between each side with what appears
>>> to be nothing more than claims from each.
>>
>>NASA , the Met and the IPCC seem to be backing away pretty quickly
>>from claims of warming... As in, none since 1997.
>>
>><http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_we
>>r e_junk.html>
>>
>><http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmi
>>s m-192334971.html>
>>
>><http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped
>>-
>>16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-n
>>o w.html?ito=feeds-newsxml>
>
> And, of course, the mainstream media tucks it tidily away, passing
> over the real news because it doesn't fit their neat little
> money-making habit of spreading fear and terror. I hope Han and
> friends take the time to digest this and start looking into the
> skeptic side for more real data.
>
> If Climategate was "just stolen emails", Watergate was "just a prank".
>
> How many more of these scandals will it take to open their eyes?
>
> ---
>
> I had some wood-related fun today. I borrowed climbing gear from a
> tree guy and was going to take down my birches today. After gearing
> up, I started up the tree. 3' later, I came back down. I tightened up
> the two straps which went around the tree and started back up. Still
> nogo by 4'. The spurs were wedging themselves into the tree tightly
> and it took a lot of effort to remove them each time. I tightened the
> spurs to my legs and feet and shortened the harness straps again.
> Still too far from the tree. OK. I came back down the 5' and again
> tightened up the straps to hold me closer to the tree. That's better.
> At about 8' up, I was out of breath and my arms/chest were burning. (I
> had no idea it took so much upper body strength to climb trees.) I
> looked up and the limbs were a good 13' up, so I called it a day. I
> just don't have the stamina to climb the tree. Oh, well. It was a
> fun try and I didn't kill myself havin' at it.
>
> Gettin' old sucks. Now I see why there aren't a lot of tree climbers
> in their '60s. A toast to the tree climbers. That's a helluva job.
>
> --
> Believe nothing.
> No matter where you read it,
> Or who said it,
> Even if I have said it,
> Unless it agrees with your own reason
> And your own common sense.
> -- Buddha
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Climategate, bullshit.

Around here the tree crews work in teams of 3. The climber goes up on a
rope thrown over a (sturdy) branch and positions himself. Via another
rope a chainsaw gets pulled up. Then away they go. Going up a rope
requires leg power, mostly. That's what I observed, admiring them all
the way.

In my younger days I've cut down a few trees only. Not high enough to
not be able to use ladders.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:57:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I understand that, but I have seen similar reports of where reported
>> observations were perhaps not discredited, but were at the very least
>> countered by other observations that we exactly the opposite. Like I say -
>> I don't really have a stand on the matter because too much of this goes back
>> and forth between each side with what appears to be nothing more than claims
>> from each.
>
>NASA , the Met and the IPCC seem to be backing away pretty quickly from
>claims of warming... As in, none since 1997.
>
><http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_wer
>e_junk.html>
>
><http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmis
>m-192334971.html>
>
><http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-
>16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-no
>w.html?ito=feeds-newsxml>

And, of course, the mainstream media tucks it tidily away, passing
over the real news because it doesn't fit their neat little
money-making habit of spreading fear and terror. I hope Han and
friends take the time to digest this and start looking into the
skeptic side for more real data.

If Climategate was "just stolen emails", Watergate was "just a prank".

How many more of these scandals will it take to open their eyes?

---

I had some wood-related fun today. I borrowed climbing gear from a
tree guy and was going to take down my birches today. After gearing
up, I started up the tree. 3' later, I came back down. I tightened up
the two straps which went around the tree and started back up. Still
nogo by 4'. The spurs were wedging themselves into the tree tightly
and it took a lot of effort to remove them each time. I tightened the
spurs to my legs and feet and shortened the harness straps again.
Still too far from the tree. OK. I came back down the 5' and again
tightened up the straps to hold me closer to the tree. That's better.
At about 8' up, I was out of breath and my arms/chest were burning. (I
had no idea it took so much upper body strength to climb trees.) I
looked up and the limbs were a good 13' up, so I called it a day. I
just don't have the stamina to climb the tree. Oh, well. It was a
fun try and I didn't kill myself havin' at it.

Gettin' old sucks. Now I see why there aren't a lot of tree climbers
in their '60s. A toast to the tree climbers. That's a helluva job.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 1/15/2013 7:52 AM, Han wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
> Climategate, bullshit.

PLONK

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 14 Jan 2013 21:12:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:

>> --
>> Believe nothing.
>
>If that's your mantra, good luck.

What? You're going to preempt Buddha's full quote?


>I am selective in what I read and believe. To me, the general consensus
>is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that it
>is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line is, I
>suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.

You didn't read those links, did you? Zero heat increase in a decade.
(Let it sink in.) OK, got it yet? That's one of the things in
Climategate that you overlooked, too. Their emails discussing how to
hide the nasty little fact that _warming_wasn't_happening_at_all_ at
the time. Not just less, but none.

Oh, for you to be less a True Believer... Look at the skewing (I call
it cheating) they're doing on the temperature readings. Fewer data
points, questionable thermometer placement, more funky "adjusting",
less heat-island averaging. AGWK makes many people lots of money.
Follow the money and you'll see.


>I am not saying we should be panicking, but that we should be a little
>wiser than management of NJ Transit, who parked the cars for their
>commuter trains in 2 lots that were barely above the most highest
>recorded seawater levels (if they were above). As a result millions of
>dollars in damage were incurred. I am sure everyone will soon forget

Absofreakin'lutely.


>what happened and life will proceed as before. They aren't about to
>money for preventive management, such as making sure the next time the
>signalling systems and parking areas for the cars and locomotives won't
>flood. That track won't be as badly disrupted by storms, as they were
>during Irene, and the other storms that preceded Sandy and caused
>millions in damage as well, not to speak of the economic damage incurred
>by the people who use this mass transit.

Governments waste so much money on stupidity, it's criminal. People
force local governments to allow them to build in -known- flood plains
and then whine to them and insurance agencies for money to rebuild
when the predicted flood actually happens. The Feds should have
forced all of New Orleans to be graded 15' -above- sea level before
allowing them ANY funds to rebuild. Additional levees could then help
prevent future flooding problems. That's one bigass river!

We agree that humans truly suck at stewardship of the planet. Let's
get on their butts to do better in a SANE way. No EPA ruling that one
of the most common elements in our air is now illegal, no ruling that
we must remove contaminants down to 0.000000000000000000000000000001

(Read _Hard Green_ and _Cool It_ for sane ideas of where to start
first and how to get a whole lot more bang for the buck. Let's start
making progress instead of simply appeasing The Hanson, GOD of NOAA)


>I'm just saying, the way the US most often deals with this is to fix up
>the damage, rather than improve infrastructure to prevent recurrence. I
>guess a few more Sandys and they will start to see the light.

Let's hope they see the light before then. We're already bankrupt and
when we get any further into debt, our country just may start taking
all our assets to pay for itself, without our consent. If we default
on the debt, that's in the contract, so I hear. (I haven't yet
verified that.)


>As I mentioned before, there is no objection from me to rebuild NOLA
>below sea level. But there is a need to do so and build up and preserve
>the defenses against future storms. After all, that is what is being
>done all over the world, from Holland to England, Venice and Bangladash
>(sp?).

It's a disaster waiting to happen in most areas. Bangladesh is a
flood plain, not a country. <sigh> Wait until some idiot tango finds
some Dutch guy to get mad at. They could blow out sections of dyke
wall and flood the entire country before the sea can be stopped. Dutch
troops were in Iraq, so you're probably a marked country. (Perhaps
it's time for a global 'Contract on Radical Muslims + Other Tangoes',
which would be a lot less costly than these stupid wars.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

In article <[email protected]>, Han
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I am selective in what I read and believe.

Yes, that is crystal clear.

> To me, the general consensus
> is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that it
> is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line is, I
> suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.

The scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
"general consensus".

Follow the money, Han. Follow the money.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On 14 Jan 2013 21:24:09 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>> LJ--still not A True Believer in AGWK.
>
>Larry, I believe in global warming.

And concensus. Which means you didn't read that link yesterday.
Here it is without your having to go find it. It's very important.
Note that the IPCC copped to these things.


July 16, 2012
IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
By Joseph L. Bast

N.B. A reader reported being unable to find my IAC quotations in the
IAC report. I checked and discovered that the version of the IAC
report I cite was a "pre-publication version" posted online at the
time the report was first announced. That version can be found at
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/28336.pdf.

That was the only version of the IAC report available when I wrote
about it at the time it was released, on 8/31/2010. I confess, I
pulled up that unpublished essay and modified it when the IPCC issued
its news release some two weeks ago, creating the article that appears
here at American Thinker. It did not occur to me that the final
version of the report would differ so much from the pre-publication
version as to cause this problem.

Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz21T6QIU00

I leave it to others to speculate on why the IAC apparently watered
down its criticism of the IPCC to the point of making these criticism
almost invisible in the final report. I also note that in the
8/31/2010 essay, I offered the following caveat, which also applies to
this article but perhaps should not have gone unsaid:

The report is written in the common language of academics
commenting on one another's shortcomings. Recommendations to
"strengthen" and "improve" put a positive spin on findings that reveal
that current management and review systems are weak, broken, or even
corrupt. It takes a little reading between the lines to realize what
faults were discovered and being reported.



On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of
implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by
the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's
science academies to provide advice to international bodies."

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes
is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the
world's most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about
man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is
scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national
academies of science around the world as "proof" that the global
warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence
of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC's reports were flawed, as a many global warming "skeptics"
have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global
warming movement -- the environmental movement's "mother of all
environmental scares" -- is undermined. The Obama administration's
war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to
solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal
income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to "fix" a
problem that didn't really exist.

The "recommendations" issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to
a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the
findings of the IAC's 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due
consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20),
fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant
review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not
"consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their
responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not
peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for
selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to
many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists
from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists
from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who
these scientists are or because political considerations are given
more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words:
authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who
agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and
environmental activists -- a problem called out by global warming
realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media
or policymakers -- was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by
an organization in the "mainstream" of alarmist climate change
thinking. "[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the
assessment's findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be
politically motivated," the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they
interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report "too political" (p.
25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone --
environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities -- that
the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that
even the scientists involved in writing the reports -- remember, they
are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves -- felt
the summaries were "too political."

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the "consensus
of scientists":

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for
several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the
individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large
delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p.
25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the
"true consensus of scientists"?

Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony "confidence
intervals" and estimates of "certainty" in the Summary for Policy
Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this
was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott
Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists
cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are
about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as "80%
confident." Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is "not an appropriate way to characterize
uncertainty" (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC
authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called "level of
understanding scale," which is more mush-mouth for "consensus."

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that "conclusions will likely
be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and
therefore statements of 'very high confidence' will have little
substantive value." Yes, but that doesn't keep the media and
environmental activists from citing them over and over again as
"proof" that global warming is man-made and a crisis...even if that's
not really what the reports' authors are saying.

Finally, the IAC noted, "the lack of a conflict of interest and
disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern
raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the
Committee or provided written input" as well as "the practice of
scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their
own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these
claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review" (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent
revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some
chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not
scientists at all. That's a structural problem with the IPCC that
could dwarf the big problems already reported.

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without
so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. -- go
ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and
promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here...keep
on moving.

Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC
report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC
reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just "possibly flawed" or
"could have been improved," but likely to be wrong and even
fraudulent.

It means that all of the "endorsements" of the climate consensus made
by the world's national academies of science -- which invariably refer
to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis -- were based on
false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or
revised. It means that the EPA's "endangerment finding" -- its claim
that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health -- was
wrong and should be overturned.

And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The
near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months
already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather
than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work
and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom
they disagree. Instead of "confidence," we will get "level of
understanding scales" that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world's economy to run on
breezes and sunbeams?

In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global
warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits
confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our
money back?

Joseph L. Bast ([email protected]) is president of The Heartland
Institute and an editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of
reports published by The Heartland Institute for the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change.

--

http://tinyurl.com/ca7e87p And on your "concensus of world-class
scientists", try this ringer on for size:

How the IPCC Defines ‘Distinguished Scientist’

July 27, 2011 at 12:05 pm

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), appears to be on a media tour intended to
rehabilitate both his own reputation and that of the organization he
leads.

Yesterday’s article in the UK’s Telegraph may turn out to be one of a
series of similar stories (backup link here). Unfortunately, there’s
every indication that these accounts will be written by shockingly
uninformed journalists who’ll continue to give Pachauri the benefit of
the doubt.

In this instance journalist Peter Stanford falls for Pachauri’s claim
that he’s being targeted in a shoot-the-messenger scenario. According
to this narrative, the public doesn’t want to confront the danger of
climate change so the person delivering the unwelcome news gets
attacked.

Oh, please. Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about
how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these
reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply
not the case.

He has boasted that his organization is utterly transparent – but an
InterAcademy Council committee that took a close look at the IPCC last
year concluded otherwise – before recommending that Pachauri should
step down.

Pachauri has said IPCC reports are written by the world’s top
scientists when, in fact, many of those involved are 20-something grad
students, green activists, and people appointed with an eye to filling
“diversity” quotas.

In yesterday’s article Pachauri dismissed concerns that a lead author
of a recent IPCC report is a Greenpeace activist:

“Each chapter of the report has two co-ordinating lead authors,”
[Pachauri] explains, “and then nine other contributing authors. Sven
Teske was one of the nine, as was someone from a Jamaican oil company.
These people are not dummies. They are distinguished scientists.”
[bold added]

I first wrote about Teske a year-and-a-half ago. I pointed out that,
when a Greenpeace protest vessel shut down Europe’s largest coal port
in 2005, Teske was on board.

In 2006 he was described as the “Greenpeace Co-ordinator and scenario
analyst” in a Greenpeace report produced in conjunction with the
European Photovoltaic Industry Association (a solar power lobby
group).

A year later he co-authored another Greenpeace publication titled New
Zealand Energy Revolution: How to Prevent Climate Chaos. It features a
foreword by (and photograph of) Pachauri.

According to a bio that was online in January 2010 but has since
disappeared, Teske has a BSc in engineering and a masters in “wind
energy technology.” But a bio in this 2009 book makes no mention of a
masters degree – although it says Teske has been in the employ of
Greenpeace since 1994.

To add to the confusion, a Greenpeace press release from 1995
describes him as a “nuclear expert” (screengrab here).

To recap, then: Teske appears to have no more than a Masters degree.
He has been a Greenpeace activist and employee for the past 17 years.
Depending on which press release you read he is either an expert in
renewable energy or on nuclear matters (in the Greenpeace world, these
are not the same thing).

Perhaps Pachauri and journalist Stanford would care to explain which
part of Teske’s CV makes him a distinguished scientist.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 14 Jan 2013 14:47:42 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not
>>>> only there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is
>>>> happening because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities.
>>>> Yes, indeed, climate is always changing - so what? The reason for
>>>> concern is that we arecausing it this time.
>>>
>>> So Han... if climate is always changing, how can it be that we are
>>> causing it this time? You are a scientist - does that conclusion
>>> even make sense from the standpoint of scientific observation?
>>>
>>>> And it may be a vicious cycle that once
>>>> started will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't
>>>> make that much difference to you or even to your food crops, but if
>>>> all the water in the oceans is going to warm up, that will increase
>>>> the volume.
>>>
>>> True, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is whether
>>> this is a normal event that may (or may not be...) exacerbated by
>>> humankind.
>
> Bingo!
>
>
>>>> Pretty soon, that may mean Houston will be under water,
>>>> as will just about every port city in the world, unless we build
>>>> sea defenses that are 20 feet or more in height greater than what
>>>> (if anything) is there now. Not this decade perhaps, or even this
>>>> century, but it will happen, according to reliable predictions.
>>>
>>> Again - that is alarmist talk that is not relevant to the point at
>>> hand.
>
> Yet they REbuilt Nawlins under sea level. Go figure.
>
>
>>>> It
>>>> may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we have had 3 or
>>>> 4 "100-year storms" in the last few years, including Sandy, the
>>>> worst of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by abnormally warm
>>>> ocean waters ... So the question is how many Sandys does it take
>>>> to make you guys believers?
>>>
>>> It takes more evidence than the alarmists attempt to throw on the
>>> table, and it takes more consesus than currently exists between
>>> equally qualified scientific voices. Your fears are fine for you to
>>> feel comftable with, but they aren't much more than that - your
>>> fears.
>>>
>>> When I built my house 30-ish years ago, we commonly woke up to 3'-4'
>>> of fresh snow in the driveway. It was just life here in this area.
>>> We have not seen winters like that in over 10 years. Over the past
>>> few years our winters have been unusually mild with last year being
>>> a record (or near record) low in snowfall. This year is shaping up
>>> to be similar so far.
>>> So - 30 years ago we were all in a wad about global cooling and if
>>> we had
>>> rushed off with the fears and anxieties of the moment, picking and
>>> chosing the scientific theories we wanted to subscribe to, we would
>>> have charged off doing something. Well - here we are a short time
>>> in history later, and we are facing the exact opposite conditions.
>>>
>>> I prefer to let the alarmist voices that draw premature conclusions
>>> based on no consensus at all within the expert community, such as
>>> yours, content themselves with wringing their hands and crying that
>>> the sky is falling. As for me - I just don't know, and that's
>>> because brighter minds than my own in this whole matter, don't know.
>>
>>Mike, there is an important difference between global climate and
>>local weather. What the people you call alarmists are saying is that
>>the global climate is warming. You're right, it has happened before,
>>but generally on geological time scales - thousands of years. Of
>>course there have been ups and downs, and what you describe in your
>>driveway's snow accumulations may be like that. Little ice ages and
>>warm periods, the little ice ages sometimes due to volcanic eruptions
>>such as Krakatao. The "alarmists" are saying this is different, and
>>the science backs them up. Recently a scientist who very much doubted
>>the theories went on a project to disprove the alarmists, and came
>>back being convinced. More
>
> Are you referring to Bjorn Lomborg? He came back being a _little_
> convinced. Go watch "Cool It" on Netflix to refresh your memory. He
> still says we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions or throwing our
> money away. It's a 100 year thing, not a 10 year crisis. We're
> allowing people to die today because funds are spent on AGWK which
> could be saving lives. That's the larger problem.
>
>
>>recently, in at least some places in Antarctica and Greenland, it
>>appears that the ice is melting faster, and sliding towards the sea
>>faster, than most people had been predicting. Read this kitchen
>>counter experiment you can do yourself (sorry if it wraps)
>><http://tinyurl.com/auxqx7a>
>><http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bring-science-home-
>>sealevel-rise>
>
> You know that a whole lot of the ice on the Earth is already floating
> on water, don't you? And you know that as something melts here, it
> rebuilds over there, don't you? Do the research. It won't be found on
> your alarmist sites, though. Seek info further afield, Han. It's out
> there for you to find. I know you're already a skeptic. Your skeptical
> biorythym is just on its low cycle right now. I'll see if I can dig
> up some sites for you from Patrick J. Michaels' _Meltdown: The
> Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians,
> and the Media_. Here's one:
> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol7/v7n22/fe
> ature.htm
>
> Read some of these books, whydoncha?
> Tucker, _Terrestrial Energy_
> Michaels, _Shattered Concensus_
> Huber, _Hard Green_
> Bailey, _Earth Report 2000_
> Singer, _Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years_
> Plimer, _Heaven & Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science_
>
> Then you'll know both sides to help make up your mind.
>
>
>>Obviously this won't happen in antarctica all at once, but even a
>>small fraction of 60 meters is a lot (60 meters is about 200 feet). I
>>live 15 miles inland from New York City at elevation of ~67 feet.
>
> Did man cause this one, too? <g>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/science/la-sci-sn-sea-level-201
> 20712 (I don't buy either scenario.)
>
> IF it warms up a handful of degrees this current century (and I don't
> believe it will), man will simply have to move his cities upward, to
> higher elevations than the current shorelines. Mother Nature doesn't
> bow to our whims.
>
> --
> Believe nothing.

If that's your mantra, good luck.

I am selective in what I read and believe. To me, the general consensus
is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that it
is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line is, I
suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.

I am not saying we should be panicking, but that we should be a little
wiser than management of NJ Transit, who parked the cars for their
commuter trains in 2 lots that were barely above the most highest
recorded seawater levels (if they were above). As a result millions of
dollars in damage were incurred. I am sure everyone will soon forget
what happened and life will proceed as before. They aren't about to
money for preventive management, such as making sure the next time the
signalling systems and parking areas for the cars and locomotives won't
flood. That track won't be as badly disrupted by storms, as they were
during Irene, and the other storms that preceded Sandy and caused
millions in damage as well, not to speak of the economic damage incurred
by the people who use this mass transit.

I'm just saying, the way the US most often deals with this is to fix up
the damage, rather than improve infrastructure to prevent recurrence. I
guess a few more Sandys and they will start to see the light.

As I mentioned before, there is no objection from me to rebuild NOLA
below sea level. But there is a need to do so and build up and preserve
the defenses against future storms. After all, that is what is being
done all over the world, from Holland to England, Venice and Bangladash
(sp?).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
news:150120132126302326%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:

> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am selective in what I read and believe.
>
> Yes, that is crystal clear.
>
>> To me, the general consensus
>> is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that
>> it is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line
>> is, I suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.
>
> The scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
> "general consensus".
>
> Follow the money, Han. Follow the money.

What money, Dave? The deniers' money?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 14 Jan 2013 21:24:09 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 14 Jan 2013 13:34:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also that the preferred term has become "Climate Change" to
>>>>> avoid confrontation with those nasty folk who point out any flaws
>>>>> in the "Global Warming" argument.
>>>>
>>>> An equally good point. It seems to me that those with the agenda in
>>>> this matter used this tactic (renaming the issue at hand), in order
>>>> to continue to advance their agenda by attempting to remove a point
>>>> of objection (dodging it), rather than honestly re-evaluating the
>>>> facts as they became challenged. People with agendas may serve a
>>>> purpose in getting discussions started, but those agendas lose their
>>>> value very quickly once discussion begins - at least to me they do.
>>>
>>>Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not only
>>>there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is happening
>>>because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities. Yes, indeed,
>>>climate is always changing - so what? The reason for concern is that
>>>we arecausing it this time. And it may be a vicious cycle that once
>>>started will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't make
>>>that much difference to you or even to your food crops, but if all the
>>>water in the oceans is going to warm up, that will increase the
>>>volume. Pretty soon, that may mean Houston will be under water, as
>>>will just about every port city in the world, unless we build sea
>>>defenses that are 20 feet or more in height greater than what (if
>>>anything) is there now. Not this decade perhaps, or even this
>>>century, but it will happen, according to reliable predictions.
>>
>> Oh, my! You'll lose most of Manhattan when all the snow in the world
>> melts, won't you? What to do, what to do?
>>
>> Let's all watch "Waterworld" so we'll know how to live ATM! ;)
>> (After The Melt)
>>
>>
>>>It may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we
>>>have had 3 or 4 "100-year storms" in the last few years, including
>>>Sandy, the worst of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by
>>>abnormally warm ocean waters ... So the question is how many Sandys
>>>does it take to make you guys believers?
>>
>> Y'mean the guys who say "Hey, we can live in flood zones as long as
>> insurance bails us out every year."
>>
>> LJ--still not A True Believer in AGWK.
>
>Larry, I believe in global warming.

Then you're probably reading only the alarmist reports, nothing sane.



>I helped carry stuff from the subbasement of the Manhattan VA when it
>started to flood in the 80's. Cars in the lot behind the building were
>up to the door windows in seawater. Of course management (spit!) decided
>it was fine to build the new emergency generator system in the basement
>afer this had happened. Same for Bellevue, and NYU medical buildings
>along that stretch of First Avenue. They are still out except for some
>minimal service at NYU, I believe. Untold effort in samples etc have
>been irretrievably lost (I collected some of those).

Bummer! I hope that particular managerial type was canned immediately
after it was submerged, after being asked to pay for a new genset.


>I read that some (especially new) buildings in flood-prone areas are
>being outfitted to withstand flooding. Emergency equipment on higher
>levels, flood-doors, etc, etc. Probably far too little, but we will
>indeed find out next time.

I wish them luck.


>Unless the Canary Islands explode with an enormous volcanic blast,
>sending a tsunami accross the Atlantic before I croak, I think I am safe
>from flooding where I am (15 miles or so inland, elevation 67 or so
>feet). Eventually this will be under water, or at the shore.

<g>

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 14 Jan 2013 14:47:42 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not
>>> only there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is
>>> happening because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities.
>>> Yes, indeed, climate is always changing - so what? The reason for
>>> concern is that we arecausing it this time.
>>
>> So Han... if climate is always changing, how can it be that we are
>> causing it this time? You are a scientist - does that conclusion even
>> make sense from the standpoint of scientific observation?
>>
>>> And it may be a vicious cycle that once
>>> started will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't
>>> make that much difference to you or even to your food crops, but if
>>> all the water in the oceans is going to warm up, that will increase
>>> the volume.
>>
>> True, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is whether
>> this is a normal event that may (or may not be...) exacerbated by
>> humankind.

Bingo!


>>> Pretty soon, that may mean Houston will be under water,
>>> as will just about every port city in the world, unless we build sea
>>> defenses that are 20 feet or more in height greater than what (if
>>> anything) is there now. Not this decade perhaps, or even this
>>> century, but it will happen, according to reliable predictions.
>>
>> Again - that is alarmist talk that is not relevant to the point at
>> hand.

Yet they REbuilt Nawlins under sea level. Go figure.


>>> It
>>> may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we have had 3 or 4
>>> "100-year storms" in the last few years, including Sandy, the worst
>>> of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by abnormally warm ocean
>>> waters ... So the question is how many Sandys does it take to make
>>> you guys believers?
>>
>> It takes more evidence than the alarmists attempt to throw on the
>> table, and it takes more consesus than currently exists between
>> equally qualified scientific voices. Your fears are fine for you to
>> feel comftable with, but they aren't much more than that - your fears.
>>
>> When I built my house 30-ish years ago, we commonly woke up to 3'-4'
>> of fresh snow in the driveway. It was just life here in this area.
>> We have not seen winters like that in over 10 years. Over the past
>> few years our winters have been unusually mild with last year being a
>> record (or near record) low in snowfall. This year is shaping up to
>> be similar so far.
>> So - 30 years ago we were all in a wad about global cooling and if we
>> had
>> rushed off with the fears and anxieties of the moment, picking and
>> chosing the scientific theories we wanted to subscribe to, we would
>> have charged off doing something. Well - here we are a short time in
>> history later, and we are facing the exact opposite conditions.
>>
>> I prefer to let the alarmist voices that draw premature conclusions
>> based on no consensus at all within the expert community, such as
>> yours, content themselves with wringing their hands and crying that
>> the sky is falling. As for me - I just don't know, and that's because
>> brighter minds than my own in this whole matter, don't know.
>
>Mike, there is an important difference between global climate and local
>weather. What the people you call alarmists are saying is that the
>global climate is warming. You're right, it has happened before, but
>generally on geological time scales - thousands of years. Of course
>there have been ups and downs, and what you describe in your driveway's
>snow accumulations may be like that. Little ice ages and warm periods,
>the little ice ages sometimes due to volcanic eruptions such as Krakatao.
>The "alarmists" are saying this is different, and the science backs them
>up. Recently a scientist who very much doubted the theories went on a
>project to disprove the alarmists, and came back being convinced. More

Are you referring to Bjorn Lomborg? He came back being a _little_
convinced. Go watch "Cool It" on Netflix to refresh your memory. He
still says we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions or throwing our
money away. It's a 100 year thing, not a 10 year crisis. We're
allowing people to die today because funds are spent on AGWK which
could be saving lives. That's the larger problem.


>recently, in at least some places in Antarctica and Greenland, it appears
>that the ice is melting faster, and sliding towards the sea faster, than
>most people had been predicting. Read this kitchen counter experiment
>you can do yourself (sorry if it wraps)
><http://tinyurl.com/auxqx7a>
><http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bring-science-home-
>sealevel-rise>

You know that a whole lot of the ice on the Earth is already floating
on water, don't you? And you know that as something melts here, it
rebuilds over there, don't you? Do the research. It won't be found on
your alarmist sites, though. Seek info further afield, Han. It's out
there for you to find. I know you're already a skeptic. Your skeptical
biorythym is just on its low cycle right now. I'll see if I can dig
up some sites for you from Patrick J. Michaels' _Meltdown: The
Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians,
and the Media_. Here's one:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol7/v7n22/feature.htm

Read some of these books, whydoncha?
Tucker, _Terrestrial Energy_
Michaels, _Shattered Concensus_
Huber, _Hard Green_
Bailey, _Earth Report 2000_
Singer, _Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years_
Plimer, _Heaven & Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science_

Then you'll know both sides to help make up your mind.


>Obviously this won't happen in antarctica all at once, but even a small
>fraction of 60 meters is a lot (60 meters is about 200 feet). I live 15
>miles inland from New York City at elevation of ~67 feet.

Did man cause this one, too? <g>
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/science/la-sci-sn-sea-level-20120712
(I don't buy either scenario.)

IF it warms up a handful of degrees this current century (and I don't
believe it will), man will simply have to move his cities upward, to
higher elevations than the current shorelines. Mother Nature doesn't
bow to our whims.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:54:40 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

> Joseph L. Bast ([email protected]) is president of The Heartland
> Institute and an editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of
> reports published by The Heartland Institute for the Nongovernmental
> International Panel on Climate Change.

Guess it depends on who you believe, Larry. Looking up Joseph Bast, it
seems he's not the unbiased scientist he would have you believe.


"Founded in the early 1984, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-
edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally,
Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market
movement." In February of 2012, internal strategy and funding documents
detailing the Heartland Institutes campaign of global warming denial were
released to DeSmogBlog. The documents included strategies for raising
funds from Koch brothers foundations, as well as a plan to create school
curriculums that cast doubt on global warming science. Documents and
analysis are available at desmogblog.com.

The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007,
www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific
consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of
like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from
ExxonMobil and other polluters.

The site goes on to say:

"Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998."

Makes his veracity a little questionable, wouldn't you say?

The quotes above are from :

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

which gives a very long list of the "independent" organizations funded by
Exxon.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:26:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

> he scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
> "general consensus".


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html


--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 1/15/2013 11:44 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

> The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007

Mentioning Heartland is like mentioning Fox News or MSNBC to either extreme.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 14 Jan 2013 13:34:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note also that the preferred term has become "Climate Change" to
>>>> avoid confrontation with those nasty folk who point out any flaws
>>>> in the "Global Warming" argument.
>>>
>>> An equally good point. It seems to me that those with the agenda in
>>> this matter used this tactic (renaming the issue at hand), in order
>>> to continue to advance their agenda by attempting to remove a point
>>> of objection (dodging it), rather than honestly re-evaluating the
>>> facts as they became challenged. People with agendas may serve a
>>> purpose in getting discussions started, but those agendas lose their
>>> value very quickly once discussion begins - at least to me they do.
>>
>>Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not only
>>there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is happening
>>because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities. Yes, indeed,
>>climate is always changing - so what? The reason for concern is that
>>we arecausing it this time. And it may be a vicious cycle that once
>>started will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't make
>>that much difference to you or even to your food crops, but if all the
>>water in the oceans is going to warm up, that will increase the
>>volume. Pretty soon, that may mean Houston will be under water, as
>>will just about every port city in the world, unless we build sea
>>defenses that are 20 feet or more in height greater than what (if
>>anything) is there now. Not this decade perhaps, or even this
>>century, but it will happen, according to reliable predictions.
>
> Oh, my! You'll lose most of Manhattan when all the snow in the world
> melts, won't you? What to do, what to do?
>
> Let's all watch "Waterworld" so we'll know how to live ATM! ;)
> (After The Melt)
>
>
>>It may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we
>>have had 3 or 4 "100-year storms" in the last few years, including
>>Sandy, the worst of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by
>>abnormally warm ocean waters ... So the question is how many Sandys
>>does it take to make you guys believers?
>
> Y'mean the guys who say "Hey, we can live in flood zones as long as
> insurance bails us out every year."
>
> LJ--still not A True Believer in AGWK.

Larry, I believe in global warming. And yes, it is quite possible that
much of Manhattan (much more than with Sandy) will flood again at some
point in the future. When, and to what extent, I don't know.

I helped carry stuff from the subbasement of the Manhattan VA when it
started to flood in the 80's. Cars in the lot behind the building were
up to the door windows in seawater. Of course management (spit!) decided
it was fine to build the new emergency generator system in the basement
afer this had happened. Same for Bellevue, and NYU medical buildings
along that stretch of First Avenue. They are still out except for some
minimal service at NYU, I believe. Untold effort in samples etc have
been irretrievably lost (I collected some of those).

I read that some (especially new) buildings in flood-prone areas are
being outfitted to withstand flooding. Emergency equipment on higher
levels, flood-doors, etc, etc. Probably far too little, but we will
indeed find out next time.

Unless the Canary Islands explode with an enormous volcanic blast,
sending a tsunami accross the Atlantic before I croak, I think I am safe
from flooding where I am (15 miles or so inland, elevation 67 or so
feet). Eventually this will be under water, or at the shore.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 14 Jan 2013 13:34:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Note also that the preferred term has become "Climate Change" to
>>> avoid confrontation with those nasty folk who point out any flaws in
>>> the "Global Warming" argument.
>>
>> An equally good point. It seems to me that those with the agenda in
>> this matter used this tactic (renaming the issue at hand), in order to
>> continue to advance their agenda by attempting to remove a point of
>> objection (dodging it), rather than honestly re-evaluating the facts
>> as they became challenged. People with agendas may serve a purpose in
>> getting discussions started, but those agendas lose their value very
>> quickly once discussion begins - at least to me they do.
>
>Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not only
>there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is happening
>because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities. Yes, indeed,
>climate is always changing - so what? The reason for concern is that we
>arecausing it this time. And it may be a vicious cycle that once started
>will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't make that much
>difference to you or even to your food crops, but if all the water in the
>oceans is going to warm up, that will increase the volume. Pretty soon,
>that may mean Houston will be under water, as will just about every port
>city in the world, unless we build sea defenses that are 20 feet or more
>in height greater than what (if anything) is there now. Not this decade
>perhaps, or even this century, but it will happen, according to reliable
>predictions.

Oh, my! You'll lose most of Manhattan when all the snow in the world
melts, won't you? What to do, what to do?

Let's all watch "Waterworld" so we'll know how to live ATM! ;)
(After The Melt)


>It may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we
>have had 3 or 4 "100-year storms" in the last few years, including Sandy,
>the worst of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by abnormally warm
>ocean waters ... So the question is how many Sandys does it take to make
>you guys believers?

Y'mean the guys who say "Hey, we can live in flood zones as long as
insurance bails us out every year."

LJ--still not A True Believer in AGWK.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 1/14/2013 3:24 PM, Han wrote:
...

> Larry, I believe in global warming. ...
...

I'll simply point to

<http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358>

as a worthwhile read.

--

On 1/14/2013 6:43 PM, Mike M wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:25:17 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> For at least ten years now it has been tacitly agreed upon, and
>> practiced by the more considerate of the participants hereabouts, to
>> mark 'off topic' posts in a thread "OT" in the Subject text box.
>>
>> Simply out of consideration for folks who don't care to wade through
>> political BS to get to the rare "on topic" woodworking post in an
>> obvious "on topic" thread, you might want to reconsider the concept.
>>
>> Just saying ...
>
> Considering how two sentences in my post caused that thread to totally
> go of course and under threat of Gorilla Glue & other tortures I'm
> just going to stay the hell away from those topics that cause things
> to go sideways.

;) Not your fault at all, Mike ...

But it's indeed sad, in a forum where woodworking content participation
is becoming rarer by the day ... and folks wonder why the hell all the
woodworking oldtimers have left ... WHY anyone would blindly and
blithely continue to crap on some of the few 'on topic' woodworking
threads by NOT being considerate enough to at least CHANGE, or ADD "OT"
to the subject line of their 'off topic' replies so folks at least have
a CHOICE by not having to wade through their off topic BS in an on topic
thread?

I already have a killfile with inconsiderate peabrained assholes to whom
woodworking is nothing more than what they can figure out how to GOOGLE.
I really do hate to add to it, but _inconsiderate_ peabrained ass
behavior is inconsiderate peabrained ass behavior ... so be it.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
>Climategate, bullshit.

There are none so blind...

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:40:23 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:26:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> he scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
>> "general consensus".
>
>
>http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

We're supposed to start believing Hanson-controlled GISS flunkies?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. I believe in hockey stick graphs, too. <wink>

https://www.google.com/search?q=giss+controversy Food for thought.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 16 Jan 2013 14:20:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
>news:150120132122237503%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> That does NOT mean there is no human-caused warming.
>>
>> It means there has been no warming since 1997, human caused or not.
>
>Probably wrong
><http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/an-alarm-in-the-offing-on-
>climate-change/>

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has
moved firmly into the present,” the draft document says. “Americans
are noticing changes all around them."

Around here, we call that "weather". To True Believers, that doesn't
matter. If it's scary and can be screamed into the media, they'll
scream it, and the good little media puppies wag their tails and do
exactly as they are told. <sigh>

And if it's 'political' (i.e: shows no temperature increase) it will
be quietly buried or the data will be edited out of the report.

As it was at the CRU of UEA. (aka Climategate)

--
Number of people killed in mass shooting when stopped by police: 18.25
Number of people killed when stopped by civilians: 2

Save lives: Keep Civilians Armed!

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
>>Climategate, bullshit.
>
> There are none so blind...

Indeed.
From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf>
Gauging the Global Greenhouse
The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
level rise won’t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:25:17 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Han wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>For at least ten years now it has been tacitly agreed upon, and
>practiced by the more considerate of the participants hereabouts, to
>mark 'off topic' posts in a thread "OT" in the Subject text box.
>
>Simply out of consideration for folks who don't care to wade through
>political BS to get to the rare "on topic" woodworking post in an
>obvious "on topic" thread, you might want to reconsider the concept.
>
>Just saying ...

Considering how two sentences in my post caused that thread to totally
go of course and under threat of Gorilla Glue & other tortures I'm
just going to stay the hell away from those topics that cause things
to go sideways.

Mike M
8-)

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:43:38 -0800, Mike M
>Considering how two sentences in my post caused that thread to totally
>go of course and under threat of Gorilla Glue & other tortures I'm
>just going to stay the hell away from those topics that cause things
>to go sideways.

Factually impossible. The only way you're going to post and not have
any of them go sideways is to not post at all.

On 16 Jan 2013 14:21:33 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
>news:150120132126302326%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I am selective in what I read and believe.
>>
>> Yes, that is crystal clear.
>>
>>> To me, the general consensus
>>> is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that
>>> it is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line
>>> is, I suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.
>>
>> The scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
>> "general consensus".
>>
>> Follow the money, Han. Follow the money.
>
>What money, Dave? The deniers' money?

<blink, blink> What? The billions Algore wants to get for his share
of the carbon credits don't count? The tens of billions going to
researchers which -support- the global warming conspiracy which aren't
going to researchers who are skeptics? What money? Jesus, Han. Wake
up. That's just the tip. Why do you think so many research whores
jumped on the GW bandwagon, hmm? <sigh>

Disclaimer: I've never been hired by Big Oil or Big Gov't and neither
the Kochs nor Soros ever offered me money, yet I'm still a skeptic.
Where's my denier's money, damnit? ;)

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
>>>Climategate, bullshit.
>>
>> There are none so blind...
>
>Indeed.
>From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
>(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
><http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf>
>Gauging the Global Greenhouse
>The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
>its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
>September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
>mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
>level rise won’t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
>big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
>climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
Unreal!

I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
later. (Enjoy the egg. ;)

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:20:02 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> On 1/17/2013 1:49 AM, Dave wrote:
>> the money being made by all those businesses that are
>> ignoring global warming while they continue to spew garbage into the
>> atmosphere.
> Obviously you have never worked for a manufacturing company. For some
> companies the environmental regulations are stifling. We could not
> improve our boilers because the government would not let us. We had
> several boilers. The plan submitted to the government was to shut down
> some and increase the capacity of other. While the net results of the
> plan would decrease the total site emissions, it was turned down as a
> couple of the boilers would increase in emissions. So the results of
> government control was to continue with the old inefficient system and
> continue higher emissions than was necessary.
>
> That is what the government considers protecting the environment.

I do a good bit of environmental work, and your are correct, the system
is only designed to punish and provides few incentives for a business to
make improvements. In fact any improvement is viewed with distrust and
suspicion.

An example:

In AL all businesses that are in Title V pay fees per ton of emissions to
recover the entire cost of the Title V program in the state, the net
effect is
that if statewide all business eliminated 75 percent of emissions the fee
per ton would quadruple and would generate many new monitoring
requirements. A net loss overall for business. It is easier and less
expensive to maintain the status quo.

basilisk

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:57:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
>going to researchers who are skeptics? What money? Jesus, Han. Wake
>up. That's just the tip. Why do you think so many research whores
>jumped on the GW bandwagon, hmm? <sigh>

Perhaps it's the money being made by all those businesses that are
ignoring global warming while they continue to spew garbage into the
atmosphere.

And the fact that we are closer to a hotter sun than normal
in our orbit and the Sun went a year without solar flares and now
we are getting hit by bigger ones. A monster is on the way now.

We are just coming to the peak of an 11 year cycle. It will slowly
get back to normal over the next half dozen years and in a couple of
decades from now it will be warm again.

But the orbit of the earth around the sun puts us closer to the sun
than in a long while. This isn't the normal 1 year cycle but a longer
one that is part of the smaller orbit. It has to do with the other
planets changing the orbit as they move in theirs.

Martin

On 1/15/2013 10:59 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
>>>> Climategate, bullshit.
>>>
>>> There are none so blind...
>>
>> Indeed.
>>From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
>> (I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
>> <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf>
>> Gauging the Global Greenhouse
>> The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
>> its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
>> September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
>> mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
>> level rise won’t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
>> big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
>> climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.
>
> And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
> fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
> Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
> alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
> and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
> Unreal!
>
> I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
> print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
> later. (Enjoy the egg. ;)
>
> --
> Believe nothing.
> No matter where you read it,
> Or who said it,
> Even if I have said it,
> Unless it agrees with your own reason
> And your own common sense.
> -- Buddha
>

Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> in 1546679 20130116 045955 Larry Jaques
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controvers
>>>>>y Climategate, bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> There are none so blind...
>>>
>>>Indeed.
>>>From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
>>>(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
>>><http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf>
>>>Gauging the Global Greenhouse
>>>The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will
>>>deliver its next assessment of the physical science of climate change
>>>in September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster
>>>greenhouse gas mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather
>>>extremes and sea- level rise won�t be barn burners. Past reports
>>>have already answered the big questions: The world is warming, humans
>>>are behind most of that, and climate is sensitive enough to
>>>greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.
>>
>>And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
>>fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
>>Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
>>alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
>>and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
>>Unreal!
>>
>>I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
>>print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
>>later. (Enjoy the egg. ;)
>
> Still in denial then?

That's LJ ... But then, he doesn't live near any coast ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

in 1546679 20130116 045955 Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
>>>>Climategate, bullshit.
>>>
>>> There are none so blind...
>>
>>Indeed.
>>From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
>>(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
>><http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf>
>>Gauging the Global Greenhouse
>>The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
>>its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
>>September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
>>mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
>>level rise won�t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
>>big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
>>climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.
>
>And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
>fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
>Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
>alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
>and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
>Unreal!
>
>I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
>print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
>later. (Enjoy the egg. ;)

Still in denial then?

On 1/17/2013 1:49 AM, Dave wrote:
> the money being made by all those businesses that are
> ignoring global warming while they continue to spew garbage into the
> atmosphere.
Obviously you have never worked for a manufacturing company. For some
companies the environmental regulations are stifling. We could not
improve our boilers because the government would not let us. We had
several boilers. The plan submitted to the government was to shut down
some and increase the capacity of other. While the net results of the
plan would decrease the total site emissions, it was turned down as a
couple of the boilers would increase in emissions. So the results of
government control was to continue with the old inefficient system and
continue higher emissions than was necessary.

That is what the government considers protecting the environment.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 1:49 AM, Dave wrote:
>> the money being made by all those businesses that are
>> ignoring global warming while they continue to spew garbage into the
>> atmosphere.
> Obviously you have never worked for a manufacturing company. For some
> companies the environmental regulations are stifling. We could not
> improve our boilers because the government would not let us. We had
> several boilers. The plan submitted to the government was to shut down
> some and increase the capacity of other. While the net results of the
> plan would decrease the total site emissions, it was turned down as a
> couple of the boilers would increase in emissions. So the results of
> government control was to continue with the old inefficient system and
> continue higher emissions than was necessary.
>
> That is what the government considers protecting the environment.

That is what is so frustrating about these things, beit gun control, or
emmissions control, or anything else. The amount of the population that is
not just content, but becomes ardent in their support of something just
because it is "supposed" to do what they want, but never look beyone the
rhetoric to see if it really does. The open head, pour in your thoughts
people of the world. Oh well...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:01:15 -0500, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:43:38 -0800, Mike M
>>Considering how two sentences in my post caused that thread to totally
>>go of course and under threat of Gorilla Glue & other tortures I'm
>>just going to stay the hell away from those topics that cause things
>>to go sideways.
>
>Factually impossible. The only way you're going to post and not have
>any of them go sideways is to not post at all.

Maybe, but I can sure do my part to try to stay on topic.

Mike M

On 16 Jan 2013 14:37:58 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> in 1546679 20130116 045955 Larry Jaques
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controvers
>>>>>>y Climategate, bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are none so blind...
>>>>
>>>>Indeed.
>>>>From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
>>>>(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
>>>><http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf>
>>>>Gauging the Global Greenhouse
>>>>The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will
>>>>deliver its next assessment of the physical science of climate change
>>>>in September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster
>>>>greenhouse gas mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather
>>>>extremes and sea- level rise won�t be barn burners. Past reports
>>>>have already answered the big questions: The world is warming, humans
>>>>are behind most of that, and climate is sensitive enough to
>>>>greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.
>>>
>>>And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
>>>fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
>>>Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
>>>alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
>>>and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
>>>Unreal!
>>>
>>>I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
>>>print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
>>>later. (Enjoy the egg. ;)
>>
>> Still in denial then?
>
>That's LJ ... But then, he doesn't live near any coast ...

<g> Hey, I live here (Earth) too. I'm trying to keep the True
Believers from flushing our economy down the drain on unnecessary
bullshit. Read _Hard Green_ and _Cool It_. He and Bjorn are trying
to accomplish the same thing.

Let's stop people from raping the Earth but _not_ kill our countries
in the process, OK?

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha