While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being bought up.
Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth" priojects. Once the global
warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun intended, we will once again be coolong
off and those forrests will once again be sold off and harvested for fire
wood.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> The US population has been doubling about every 60 years, which is also
> roughly the world average. So it isn't just a 3rd world problem.
Not to worry ... there will be plenty of room in all those 4200sf
McMansions occupied by two ... assuming they don't fall down first.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:50:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
> credible some time in the late 80's.
Translation: They published articles that disagreed with one or more of
your cherished beliefs :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:55:32 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 12/16/2009 02:05 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.
>>>
>>> *Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??
>>
>> Yep. My wife is a geologist and thinks that anyone buying property in
>> Arizona is nuts due to the water issues.
>>
>> She also has little sympathy for people buying houses near the San
>> Andreas fault in California, and building on the edges of cliffs in
>> Vancouver. (And then they wonder why their houses fall into the ocean...)
>>
>> Chris
>
>
>Houses built on cliffs should be reclassified as mobile homes. You now
>they're going to move eventually.
Yeas ago (duh!) in one of Johnny Carson's monologs he said that
California was the only state in the Union where one had to have an
operator's license to own a home... earthquakes, mudslides ... <motion
with hand sliding down hill>
On Dec 8, 5:33 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being bought up.
> Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth" priojects. Once the global
> warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun intended, we will once again be coolong
> off and those forrests will once again be sold off and harvested for fire
> wood.
I'm gonna re-sharpen my Forrest. Tom
In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there never
> is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming majority
> (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities are having an
> effect.
The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is very
strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political and
financial reasons.
Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came from,
the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."
As for economic ties, have a look at the incredible fraud happening in
the Danish cap and trade market, and who the international corporate
interests are that have been pushing for cap and trade.
A vast conspiracy? No, of course not. But a vast conspiracy isn't
needed. Just a handful of people with an agenda and the power to push
it.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> And I don't think those East Anglians are the influential "handful of
> people" that Dave Balderstone alluded to and that I questioned.
The CRU at East Anglia is one of the key research units promoting the
concept of AGW. I indeed consider them the key players in this.
Look at the links between the CRU and the IPCC.
It's funnny how Malthus and his There Won't Be Enough To Go Around
got hooked up a bastardized version of Darwin's Theory of Evolution
- Only The Fit Will Survice. With those to assumptions the world is
seen from a Me OR You perspective - and WHEN push comes to shove
it's going to be just ME - cause I'll kill YOU if that becomes necessary
for ME to survive. This is what is referred to as a Zero Sum Game
- for someone to gain, someone else must lose.
That precludes thinking in terms of Me AND You - synergy - the actual
sum of the parts being greater than the numeric value of the parts.
Populations tend to level out and then begin to decline in
industrialized
countries - witness Japan, much of Europe, the United States, Canada,
etc. So as other countries reach a certain development level their
popolation growth rate will level off and decline - as will the
population.
But the percapita energy consumption has always - continued to climb.
It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the consumption
of non-renuable resources or the resources that are renewable - but not
at a rate need that is - and it'll be water - that you can drink
- that we should be concerned about.
On 12/12/2009 5:21 AM HeyBub spake thus:
> charlie b wrote:
>
>> It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
>> consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
>> renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
>> that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.
>
> Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is just
> temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just being
> used somewhere.
>
> As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
> areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods. They
> should import water-intensive food from areas where water is abundant. For
> example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.
Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.
*Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
On 12/16/2009 9:46 PM Mark & Juanita spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/2009 5:21 AM HeyBub spake thus:
>>
>>> charlie b wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
>>>> consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
>>>> renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
>>>> that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.
>>>
>>> Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is
>>> just temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just
>>> being used somewhere.
>>>
>>> As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
>>> areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods.
>>> They should import water-intensive food from areas where water is
>>> abundant. For example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.
>>
>> Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.
>>
>> *Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??
>
> Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little danger
> of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are good and
> growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.
Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they say
about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs around.
Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
On 12/18/2009 7:48 AM Doug Winterburn spake thus:
> On 12/17/2009 06:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2009 9:46 PM Mark & Juanita spake thus:
>>
>>> Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little
>>> danger of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are
>>> good and growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.
>>
>> Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they say
>> about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs around.
>> Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>>
> It would be a waste to not use the water after the investment made in this:
>
> http://www.cap-az.com/
The CAP is a misbegotten project that should never have been built in
the first place. See Marc Reisner's /Cadillac Desert/ for a full
explanation.
> The cotton grown here in AZ is pretty good stuff:
>
> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-pima-cotton.htm
Well, yeah; even has its own well-known name (Pima cotton). Still a bad
idea.
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:07:41 -0800, charlie b wrote:
> It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the consumption
> of non-renuable resources or the resources that are renewable - but not
> at a rate need that is - and it'll be water - that you can drink - that
> we should be concerned about.
Yep. Saw tonight that both the US and NATO military establishments are
making contingency plans to fight and/or prevent water wars due to global
warming and population growth.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:07:41 -0800, charlie b wrote:
> Populations tend to level out and then begin to decline in
> industrialized countries - witness Japan, much of Europe, the United
> States,...
But the increase in the US has NOT leveled out. More of it is
immigration instead of births than it used to be, but it's still growth.
Gotta' keep that Ponzi economy going :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"charlie b" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>>
>> Rob Leatham
>
> Underwater
>
> Space Station
>
> Black powder Storage Bunker
>
> Gasoline Refinery
>
> Nitroglyerin factory
>
> Baby Nursery
>
> Steel Walled Room
ROTFLMAO
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:50:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. The irony
>> was that they had some very interesting columns prior to that
>> describing what they termed "math abuse" -- the manipulation of
>> statistics and selective presentation (e.g. selective use of scale,
>> smoothing, etc) to guide a preferred interpretation of the data.
>
> AFAIK, they're still peer-reviewed articles. So there must be a lot
> of people in on the conspiracy :-).
Yep, there were. But it was merely sufficient to suppress dissenting views.
Which they did by preventing these views from being published.
Further, it is IMPOSSIBLE for "peers" to review a paper if the underlying
data are unavailable.
Bob Martin <[email protected]> writes:
>in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>phorbin wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbell.dotnet says...
>>>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
>>>> bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
>>>> priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
>>>> intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
>>>> once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
>>> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
>>
>>Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
>>that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.
>
>So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...
Then you'd be a fool, since we've been there and know that it is not.
On the other hand, the current hysteria around anthropgenic
climate change (of which there is little doubt that man changes
climate, at least locally; consider the Urban Heat Island effect,
for instance; or land-use changes (why don't tornadoes strike
big cities, as a rule?)) is based on some pretty iffy science.
First, the temperature record.
Historical temperatures are both direct and derived. We have direct
temperature measurements for various parts of of the world for up to
the last 150 years. The longest sequence of such measurements are
available in the United States and Europe.
Temperatures before 1850 or so (and up to 1960 in many cases) are
derived from various measurements believed to be related to temperature
in some way. These are called proxies and include the width of
tree rings (the trees are selected such that they are believed to be
growth limited by temperature, not precipitation or other external
factors; for example long-lived trees at the alpine tree-line. A
set of bristlecone pines in the White Mountains in central California
were used in several temperature reconstructions as representative of
global temperatures in the last millenium.
Other proxies include speleotherms in caves, boreholes and the deuterium
oxygen isotope ratios in various ice cores from the ice caps and greenland.
Tree rings have been pretty much discredited as a temperature proxy by
the National Academy of Sciences (DAGS: Wegman/NAS report). Yet they
were the primary constituent of the so-called "Hockey Stick" graph used
by advocates of catastrophic climate change due to man to indicate that
the world is heading for a catastrophy. In addition, the statistical
methods used to produce a temperature signal from the tree rings and
other proxies used in the hockey stick produce the same graph from
random data (red noise). See McIntyre/McKitrick.
As for the last 150 years of surface temperature data, it should be no
surprise that over that time period, the location at which temperature
is measured changes, the time of day of the measurement (and the number
of measurements per day) changed, and in many cases the sites themselves
while once rural, became urban. This requires that the data be manipulated
(or adjusted) to accomodate these differences. The algorithms used by
Dr. Hanson at GISS seem to underestimate past temperatures, and boot current
temperatures. Dr. Peilke Sr. has a peer-reviewed paper out illustrating
the problems with the current surface temperature record as well as pointing
out the uncertainties in both the data, as well as the algorithms used to
fill in missing data and derived a global average temperature.
The error bars, while not generally discussed along with the temperature
anomolies, dwarf the 20th century anomoly of about 1 degree C.
Of course, the land surface is a small fraction of the planets surface,
so other means are used to derive a temperature signal for the 7/8ths
of the planet covered by oceans. The main measurement used is the
Sea Surface Temperature (SST). SST temperatures are also available for
about the last 100 years in the main shipping routes. This data was
measured several times a day by ships captains and logged in ships logs.
This log data has been collected and massaged to attempt to derive a
historical temperature trend for the oceans surface. However, over the
century the methods used to measure the SST changed (from dropping a
bucket over the side and hauling it up, to measuring intake cooling water
for modern ocean liners). The depth at which the measurements changed
along with the method, the tools changed from mercury thermometers to
thermocouples. All of these changes require that the data be massaged
(i.e. adjusted). This increases the error bars on the measurements
here as well.
An addition source of late 20th century upticks in the surface temperature
record are due to the Urban Heat Island effect; which is the effect
of a large city on the temperatures within that city. There are
researchers on both sides of the issue of whether the UHI has a
significant effect or not on the temperature trends; Some who discount
UHI have compared the temperatures in old, large cities like London
and Paris and extrapolated that that also applies to cites that
have significantly increased in the 20th century (atlanta, LA, BA, etc).
There is also the so called 'microsite' biases. Several of the
US sites used for the surface temperature record have had installed,
in the last decade, air conditioners, asphalt parking lots and
generators in the direct vicinity of the temperature sensor (in
some cases, the exhaust from the AC unit is three feet from the
sensor and obviously biases the summertime temperatures higher).
Other measurements in the last thirty years or so have been made by a
series of satellites with different instruments designed to measure
the temperature of the air at various altitudes (again by measuring
some effect and deriving a temperature from that effect). Where
multiple satellites were in orbit simultaneously, the data can be
adjusted with the known bias of the various instruments, but in the
case where there is no overlap between the measurements by different
instruments on different satellites, the adjustment required to match
the data is more complicated. There are at least two sets of
satellite data being used today (UAH and RSS), each of which uses a
different algorithm to adjust the data to produce a temperature trend.
Again, the error bars are are relatively large.
There is also relatively little data from the southern hemisphere yet.
Then there is CO2, which is a trace gas. The direct doubling of the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in perhaps a
degree C of heating. This is accepted. However, there is a school
of thought (of which Dr. Hanson is a prime proponent) which believes
that this doubling will lead to feedback effects from other greenhouse
gasses, particularly water vapor (which is the main greenhouse gas by
far). I.e. the belief is that adding CO2 will cause a cascading
increase in the water vapor component of the atmosphere leading to
catestrophic warming.
The only evidence for this is from computer models. Note that not one
of the dozen or so global climate models (GCM) correctly hindcast nor
forcast the actual weather. The models don't include clouds or
water vapor. Yet, the modellers claim that while no single model
is accurate, the models, when averaged together accurately predict
the future.
Given the above, I see no reason to rush through any massive economic
changes to adapt (assuming that a warming planet is a _bad_ thing, which
is another iffy proposition).
I'd point out the following, both peer reviewed climate scientists, who
present a more nuanced view of climate change:
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., U of Colorado
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 12/12/2009 5:21 AM HeyBub spake thus:
>
>> charlie b wrote:
>>
>>> It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
>>> consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
>>> renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
>>> that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.
>>
>> Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is
>> just temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just
>> being used somewhere.
>>
>> As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
>> areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods.
>> They should import water-intensive food from areas where water is
>> abundant. For example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.
>
> Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.
>
> *Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??
>
Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little danger
of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are good and
growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.
>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12/16/2009 02:05 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.
>>
>> *Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??
>
> Yep. My wife is a geologist and thinks that anyone buying property in
> Arizona is nuts due to the water issues.
>
> She also has little sympathy for people buying houses near the San
> Andreas fault in California, and building on the edges of cliffs in
> Vancouver. (And then they wonder why their houses fall into the ocean...)
>
> Chris
Houses built on cliffs should be reclassified as mobile homes. You now
they're going to move eventually.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:35:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Perusal of the Table of Contents over the past five years or so show
>> a growing interest in "political" goals: Climate Change (nee "Global
>> Warming"), green technology, fish kills, drought mitigation, population
>> control, endangered species, etc.
>
> And those are all, according to you, political goals? I thought they had
> to do with maintaining livable conditions on the planet. SciAm would be
> remiss if they didn't address them.
>
Each one of those accepts certain premises as givens that are far from
proven.
Climate change: Doest the climate change? Yes. Is man causing this?
Hardly plausible let alone proven.
> And if (a very big if) we could achieve population control, that would
> have a big impact on the others.
>
First premise taken as a given is that population growth in the developed
world is a serious problem. Second premise taken as a given is that
populations in the developed world are increasing at an alarming rate.
Population growth in developed countries has always found technological
solutions to address the ability to maintain that civilization.
Population growth in the US is due primarily to immigration. Citizens of
the US are just at replacement rate. Citizens in the European countries are
below replacement rate. At this point, their problem is not overpopulation,
but loss of population. This is going to have profound effects in the
coming years. The only people in European countries reproducing at growth
rates are immigrants from third world countries who bring a particular
mindset that is not conducive to sustainable civilization.
> I once saw studies putting the sustained carrying capacity of the US at
> anywhere from 90 to 125 million people. Even if we double the most
> optimistic estimate we're well over it.
>
> The US population has been doubling about every 60 years, which is also
> roughly the world average. So it isn't just a 3rd world problem.
>
See above, we are currently at sustainment rate with the exception of
immigration.
> The only thing "political" about these issues is that most folks put
> their personal well being above that of their descendants. Normal, but
> sometimes disheartening.
>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:22:06 -0500, the infamous phorbin
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> > Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably shitting bricks about
>> > this now.
>>
>> Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
>> about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).
>
>So was I... but I still figure that going with the idea of global
>warming and reducing carbon footprint, consumption, etc. is the best
>idea.
Did the leaks from CRU change your mind at all? (see sig)
>In an dramatic oversimplification:
>
>If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
>catastrophic. We lose.
If you force these extreme conditions on us, tens of thousands of
people will die, STARTING THIS YEAR. And that's whether you're right
or wrong.
>If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
>continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
>idea of global warming. In short, we win.
Every industry is updating with the latest technology as their old
technology becomes too expensive to maintain or when it breaks, or
when they decide that it's better to do so. We are having cleaner
technology installed every day, despite your alarms. You're just
forcing them faster, and at the cost of lives. How do you feel about
that, phorbin?
>If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
>manage to do so, we win.
The largest problem is that everything which has been suggested so far
comes far short of actually doing much to "fix" the Earth's natural
warming cycles. Combined, they're a multi-trillion dollar waste of
money for _possibly_ 1 degree C change. And that's IF the suggestions
work. For example, when Oregon switched over to oxygenated gas
(ethanol), my gas consumption went up FIFTEEN percent. It has recently
been proven that the creation of ethanol gas takes 15% more energy
than the creation of gasoline, and the price of food corn went up by
much larger amounts. Now I'm getting worse gas mileage and spending
more money to go the same amount of miles, several dozen people have
died from not being able to afford the extra price of corn, more money
is being wasted to produce ethanol, shysters are lining up to get
gov't subsidies for ethanol procuction, and the environment is no
better off for all of this. If anything, it's worse. Is this what you
call "mitigation", phorbin? Want to hear more horror stories? It's
never ending. Global warming is just another wealth-redistribution
scam. Ask Algore. After the Climategate scam, he couldn't even face
the folks at the ball in Copenhagen and he cancelled his speech there.
That is NOT a coincidence.
Feh!
>I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
>the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
>former.
You're not starving in a 3rd world country, though, are you? Those
folks beg to differ with your self-interest.
--
Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly
adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's
"global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change"
when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable
warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural
variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur
in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming.
Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being bought up.
> Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth" priojects. Once the global
> warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun intended, we will once again be coolong
> off and those forrests will once again be sold off and harvested for fire
> wood.
>
>
>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
or
http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
HeyBub wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>>> Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
>>>> never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
>>>> majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
>>>> are having an effect.
>>>
>>> The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
>>> using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is
>>> very strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political
>>> and financial reasons.
>>>
>>
>> Care to list that "handful" of people?
>>
Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Hanson at NASA, Keith Briffa, and a few others
at East Anglia, NASA, and NOAA.
Willing complicity by the media: Seth Borenstein of AP:
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/aps-seth-borenstein-is-just-too-damn-
cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/>
>>> Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came
>>> from, the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."
>>
>> Cite, please.
>>
>
> "The Dog Ate It"
>
> "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing
> away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global
> warming are based. "
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>
>
> Refusal to release data they DO have:
>
> "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
> temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
> Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
> http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/climategate-and-britains-foi/
>
>
> And absolutely fudging of data:
>
> "Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw
> data looks
> completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
> temperature readings show
> none whatsoever!"
> http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"
By the way, not just New Zealand, Australia as well:
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:50:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
>> credible some time in the late 80's.
>
> Translation: They published articles that disagreed with one or more
> of your cherished beliefs :-).
Uh, no. Human-caused global warming is a "belief" in the religious sense. It
cannot be proved, demonstrated, or explained.
If it could be proved, i.e., bolstered by sufficient evidence to convince
virtually all rational minds of the high probability of it's truth, there
would be no controversy.
It obviously cannot be demonstrated as long as only ONE contrary example
exists. The earth, moreover, is not like an oven that one can simply turn
off.
It cannot be explained to the degree that the hypothesis agrees with the
historical record or even with computer models.
A better description is that anti-AGW is an anti-belief. That is, most are
not going to believe it until it can be proved. Mere assertion, melting
glaciers, rising sea-levels, etc. are not sufficient in that completely
plausible alternative explanations are equally likely. Coincidence, for one.
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:29:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> Care to list that "handful" of people?
>>
>
> "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
> throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
> predictions of global warming are based. "
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>
>
> Refusal to release data they DO have:
>
> "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
> temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
> Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
> http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/climategate-and-britains-foi/
>
>
> And absolutely fudging of data:
>
> "Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw
> data looks
> completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
> temperature readings show
> none whatsoever!"
> http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
OK, you've proven that one group of scientists at one university, plus
another scientist who used to work at that same university, have been
unethical. That surprises you? In any large group of people, there's
always a few as******s. But that's no reason to assume that the entire
group is the same. That's like assuming, because a few fanatic
Christians have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors, that all
Christians are nurderers and bombers.
And I don't think those East Anglians are the influential "handful of
people" that Dave Balderstone alluded to and that I questioned.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 12/16/2009 02:05 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.
>
> *Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??
Yep. My wife is a geologist and thinks that anyone buying property in
Arizona is nuts due to the water issues.
She also has little sympathy for people buying houses near the San
Andreas fault in California, and building on the edges of cliffs in
Vancouver. (And then they wonder why their houses fall into the ocean...)
Chris
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:29:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>>> Care to list that "handful" of people?
>>>
>>
>> "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
>> throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
>> predictions of global warming are based. "
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>>
>>
>> Refusal to release data they DO have:
>>
>> "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
>> temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK
>> has a Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
>> http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/climategate-and-britains-foi/
>>
>>
>> And absolutely fudging of data:
>>
>> "Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own
>> raw data looks
>> completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
>> temperature readings show
>> none whatsoever!"
>> http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
>
> OK, you've proven that one group of scientists at one university, plus
> another scientist who used to work at that same university, have been
> unethical. That surprises you? In any large group of people, there's
> always a few as******s. But that's no reason to assume that the
> entire group is the same. That's like assuming, because a few fanatic
> Christians have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors, that all
> Christians are nurderers and bombers.
>
> And I don't think those East Anglians are the influential "handful of
> people" that Dave Balderstone alluded to and that I questioned.
Heh!
The folks at East Anglia are the godhead of climate research. NASA and NOAA
are tied for a distant second.
Stand by! One moment please! Attention viewers and all the ships at sea:
This just in (Dec 14th):
"Odd things are going on at the Climate Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia. Widely available data, existing in the public view for years,
is now disappearing from public view."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/whats-going-on-cru-takes-down-briffa-tree-ring-data-and-more/
And these are not "one group of scientists..." These are (ALL OF) the
leaders of the climate change community (which isn't that large to begin
with - there are only about ten of them). Admittedly 2,500 (or 10,000, I
forget how many) scientists have boarded the Anthropogenic Global Warming
bandwagon but, to carry your Christian metaphor forward, look how many true
believers the twelve (or eleven) apostles (plus Saul of Kenya) managed to
excite.
These investigators have ignored one of the cardinal rules of science: "When
you've reached the bottom of the hole, quit digging" and you may have
overlooked the first principle of public acceptance: "Fish rots from the
head down."
On 12/17/2009 06:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 12/16/2009 9:46 PM Mark & Juanita spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/12/2009 5:21 AM HeyBub spake thus:
>>>
>>>> charlie b wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
>>>>> consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
>>>>> renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
>>>>> that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.
>>>>
>>>> Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is
>>>> just temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's
>>>> just
>>>> being used somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe:
>>>> the
>>>> areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods.
>>>> They should import water-intensive food from areas where water is
>>>> abundant. For example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.
>>>
>>> Right; just as it makes little or no sense to grow cotton in Arizona.
>>>
>>> *Cotton* in Arid-zona???!??
>> Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little
>> danger of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are
>> good and growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.
>
> Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they say
> about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs around.
> Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>
>
It would be a waste to not use the water after the investment made in this:
http://www.cap-az.com/
The cotton grown here in AZ is pretty good stuff:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-pima-cotton.htm
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:35:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> Perusal of the Table of Contents over the past five years or so show
> a growing interest in "political" goals: Climate Change (nee "Global
> Warming"), green technology, fish kills, drought mitigation, population
> control, endangered species, etc.
And those are all, according to you, political goals? I thought they had
to do with maintaining livable conditions on the planet. SciAm would be
remiss if they didn't address them.
And if (a very big if) we could achieve population control, that would
have a big impact on the others.
I once saw studies putting the sustained carrying capacity of the US at
anywhere from 90 to 125 million people. Even if we double the most
optimistic estimate we're well over it.
The US population has been doubling about every 60 years, which is also
roughly the world average. So it isn't just a 3rd world problem.
The only thing "political" about these issues is that most folks put
their personal well being above that of their descendants. Normal, but
sometimes disheartening.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:57:04 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:57:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>... snip
>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"
>>
>> Whut up wi dat? Can't googlit. Cite?
>>
>
> Just corrupting an old 1980's hit by Thomas Dolby, "Blinded by Science".
>Primary refrain throughout the song is the single word, "SCIENCE!".
>Replacing that with the refrain, "CONSENSUS!" seems apropos.
Whew, what a stretch! But OK. I grok it in its entirety now. That was
a fun and catchy song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o
Note the Warrington hammah he used. This is On Topic at last!
There's a link there to The Fixx "One Thing Leads To Another"
And how about Oingo Boingo's "It's A Dead Man's Party"?
Most Excellent, Dude!
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
On 2009-12-16, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di> wrote:
> And how about Oingo Boingo's "It's A Dead Man's Party"?
which is not too far removed from Zombie Jamboree and has to be within
a few thousand degrees of All Around My Hat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zzwbYyvWiU
> Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
Amen
nb
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:57:01 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably shitting bricks about
>> this now.
>
>Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
>about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).
<g>
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:50:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. The irony was
> that they had some very interesting columns prior to that describing
> what they termed "math abuse" -- the manipulation of statistics and
> selective presentation (e.g. selective use of scale, smoothing, etc) to
> guide a preferred interpretation of the data.
AFAIK, they're still peer-reviewed articles. So there must be a lot of
people in on the conspiracy :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Dec 11, 11:16=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:50:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > =A0That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. =A0The irony=
was
> > that they had some very interesting columns prior to that describing
> > what they termed "math abuse" =A0-- the manipulation of statistics and
> > selective presentation (e.g. selective use of scale, smoothing, etc) to
> > guide a preferred interpretation of the data.
>
> AFAIK, they're still peer-reviewed articles. =A0So there must be a lot of
> people in on the conspiracy :-).
>
Using the same cooked datasets you'd expect to have some consensus.
Even here they have to censor anyone who isn't a member of the
orthodoxy. Consensus, my ass.
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry
> Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
>> never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
>> majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
>> are having an effect.
>
> The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
> using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is very
> strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political and
> financial reasons.
>
Care to list that "handful" of people?
> Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came from,
> the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."
Cite, please.
The following report was recommended to me today. I haven't had time to
read it yet, but will. Meantime, for those who are interested:
<http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/>
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>> Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
>>> never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
>>> majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
>>> are having an effect.
>>
>> The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
>> using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is
>> very strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political
>> and financial reasons.
>>
>
> Care to list that "handful" of people?
>
>> Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came
>> from, the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."
>
> Cite, please.
>
"The Dog Ate It"
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing
away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global
warming are based. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Refusal to release data they DO have:
"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/climategate-and-britains-foi/
And absolutely fudging of data:
"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data
looks
completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature
readings show
none whatsoever!"
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:49:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Climate change: Doest the climate change? Yes. Is man causing this?
> Hardly plausible let alone proven.
Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there never
is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming majority
(80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities are having an
effect.
Now I know you (and HeyBub) are going to claim a giant conspiracy of all
those scientists, but have you considered that the deniers may well (and
some do for a fact) have ties to economic interests for the status quo?
That is, those few with credence in the field - I don't care about the
others.
Someone had a letter in our newspaper a few days ago denying global
warming because there were more Antarctic icebergs than usual and that
proved the glaciers were growing and calving. Today a respondent pointed
out that Antarctic glaciers don't come from icebergs, they come from ice
fields breaking up. And guess why they're breaking up at an increased
rate ...
The above does not address the question of how much of the warming is man
made, the first writer totally denied there was any warming. I see an
awful lot of that. See my sig line :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"charlie b" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>>
>> Rob Leatham
>
>
> Steel Walled Room
Along those lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1TnU0aIJiQ
On Dec 9, 1:01=A0pm, skeez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:25:16 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>phorbin wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >>> @swbell.dotnet says...
> >>>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
> >>>> bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
> >>>> priojects. =A0Once the global warming fad has cooled =A0;~) no pun
> >>>> intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
> >>>> once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.
>
> >>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=3Dseven-answers-to-
> >>> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=3D6
>
> >>> or
>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
>
> >>Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells=
us
> >>that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.
>
> >So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...
>
> wait a min. everybody knows the moon is made of swiss cheese! can't
> you see the holes? :-]
At least it isn't Limburger...pheeeweee
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:35:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Perusal of the Table of Contents over the past five years or so show
>> a growing interest in "political" goals: Climate Change (nee "Global
>> Warming"), green technology, fish kills, drought mitigation,
>> population control, endangered species, etc.
>
> And those are all, according to you, political goals? I thought they
> had to do with maintaining livable conditions on the planet. SciAm
> would be remiss if they didn't address them.
Exactly what conditions are LESS livable today than at any time in the past?
Almost every POOR family in this country has a car, a TV, a microwave, a
cell-phone, indoor plumbing, and more. The poor today live longer,
healthier, and in all ways better lives than the affluent of a hundred years
ago.
>
> And if (a very big if) we could achieve population control, that would
> have a big impact on the others.
>
> I once saw studies putting the sustained carrying capacity of the US
> at anywhere from 90 to 125 million people. Even if we double the most
> optimistic estimate we're well over it.
Were these studies done by the forefathers of the IPCC?
>
> The US population has been doubling about every 60 years, which is
> also roughly the world average. So it isn't just a 3rd world problem.
>
> The only thing "political" about these issues is that most folks put
> their personal well being above that of their descendants. Normal,
> but sometimes disheartening.
Oh bother! If the entire population of the planet were stacked up like
cordwood, they would fit in a cubic mile!* If the earth's population lived
as the same densest part of Cairo, they would fit in the state of West
Virginia.** (Of course living in West Virginia would be pretty grim.)
The Malthusian doctrine you espouse was discredited many, many years ago.
Full agricultural output of the United States could give everybody in the
world a 2,000 calorie a day diet. Almost every natural resource continues to
get more plentiful and cheaper - check the famous Simon-Ehrlich Wager.
-------
*6,000,000,000 x 6 x 2 x 2 = 144 billion cu ft
5280^3 = 147 billion cu ft
** Cairo (280,000/sq mile) x West Virginia (24,000 sq mi) = 6.7 billion
in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>phorbin wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>> @swbell.dotnet says...
>>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
>>> bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
>>> priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
>>> intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
>>> once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
>> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
>
>Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
>that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.
So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...
phorbin wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbell.dotnet says...
>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
>> bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
>> priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
>> intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
>> once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.
HeyBub wrote:
> charlie b wrote:
>> It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
>> consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
>> renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
>> that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.
>
> Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is just
> temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just being
> used somewhere.
>
> As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
> areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods. They
> should import water-intensive food from areas where water is abundant. For
> example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.
Your example is an interesting coincidence - I've been corresponding
with a prof in Khartoum who's interested in helping to develop an
inexpensive solar-powered pump to expand the growing area along the Nile
and provide a city water supply in Khartoum.
If a large-scale solar-powered desalinization technology can also be
developed, drought susceptibility might have much less impact.
> Of course to do that, they have to develop something from which than can
> earn foreign monetary credits with which to buy the food. Perhaps mining
> minerals or opening technical support call centers...
If you can find a real long-term solution to that problem and help them
implement it, I suspect that Al-HaiBub will become a more important
historical figure than Al-Iskandr throughout that entire region. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 12/18/2009 7:48 AM Doug Winterburn spake thus:
>
>> On 12/17/2009 06:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/16/2009 9:46 PM Mark & Juanita spake thus:
>>>
>>>> Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little
>>>> danger of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields
>>>> are good and growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.
>>>
>>> Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they
>>> say about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs
>>> around. Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>>>
>> It would be a waste to not use the water after the investment made
>> in this: http://www.cap-az.com/
>
> The CAP is a misbegotten project that should never have been built in
> the first place. See Marc Reisner's /Cadillac Desert/ for a full
> explanation.
>
>> The cotton grown here in AZ is pretty good stuff:
>>
>> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-pima-cotton.htm
>
> Well, yeah; even has its own well-known name (Pima cotton). Still a
> bad idea.
i blame those damn pima indians, who started growing it here centuries ago,
who got it from the incas in peru.
regards,
charlie
cave creek, az
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:50:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
>> credible some time in the late 80's.
>
> Translation: They published articles that disagreed with one or more of
> your cherished beliefs :-).
>
Umm, no. I recognize that there are folks out there with whom I disagree
and who may come to different conclusions based upon various viewpoints they
may hold. That, however, is not science. That belongs more in the fuzzy
world of historical interpretation (which still should at least be
predicated upon historical facts vs. historical revisionism, but that's a
different discussion) or sociology or some of the other more "fuzzy"
disciplines.
At some point, Scientific American stopped doing science -- that pursuit
in which a hypothesis is put forth, experiments formulated and conducted,
data taken and examined, hypothesis confirmed, refined or rejected, and
results, along with methodology data documented and presented. Instead,
they drifted more and more into Politically Correct American in which
hypothesis was put forth, cherry-picked statistics manipulated, graphs
generated and presented, and current politically acceptable conclusion
derived and documented by currently popular experts using vigorous assertion
as proof.
That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. The irony was
that they had some very interesting columns prior to that describing what
they termed "math abuse" -- the manipulation of statistics and selective
presentation (e.g. selective use of scale, smoothing, etc) to guide a
preferred interpretation of the data.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:57:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
... snip
>>
>>
>> In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"
>
> Whut up wi dat? Can't googlit. Cite?
>
Just corrupting an old 1980's hit by Thomas Dolby, "Blinded by Science".
Primary refrain throughout the song is the single word, "SCIENCE!".
Replacing that with the refrain, "CONSENSUS!" seems apropos.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > LDosser wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
> >
> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
> >
>
> Pollution. They are now Number One
>
The images here are horrific:
<http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
/>
"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:30:10 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s,
>>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>>I've
>>>>>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with
>>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for
>>>>>>>>London.
>>>>>>>>Smog
>>>>>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a
>>>>>>>>day.
>>>>>>>>But,
>>>>>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>>>>>> much fun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>>>>>winters.
>>>>>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
>>>>> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
>>>>> considerably darker, at least at night.
>>>>>
>>>>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>>>>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
>>>>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
>>>>
>>>>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly.
>>>>Toledo
>>>>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp.
>>>>They
>>>>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the
>>>>roaches
>>>>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
>>>
>>> I've lived just up the road in the Auburn, AL area for a year and a
>>> half and haven't see a roach yet. The truck comes around once a week
>>> to spray for mosquitoes but they're certainly not as bad as they were
>>> in VT! The ants are just nuts here, though. Enought that I've
>>> declared chemical and biological war on them (would go nuclear if my
>>> wife had her wishes).
>>
>>
>>Air Force bases seem to attract roaches. Lackland in San Antonio was just
>>loaded with them. In your clothes, in the food, in the john, everywhere
>>...
>
> Wonder why? They didn't properly clean? Food unprotected? Trash?
They liked the uniforms?
> I
> haven't even seen the famous Palmetto Bettles.
Think big.
> I have seen
> Armadillos, the South's version of a Wood Chuck, in the middle of the
> road.
Hear them called possum on the half shell.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:30:10 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>
>>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>
>>>>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so
>>>>>>>I've
>>>>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>>>>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London.
>>>>>>>Smog
>>>>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a
>>>>>>>day.
>>>>>>>But,
>>>>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>>>>> much fun.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>>>>winters.
>>>>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>>>>
>>>> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
>>>> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
>>>> considerably darker, at least at night.
>>>>
>>>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>>>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
>>>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
>>>
>>>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly. Toledo
>>>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp. They
>>>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the
>>>roaches
>>>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
>>
>> I've lived just up the road in the Auburn, AL area for a year and a
>> half and haven't see a roach yet. The truck comes around once a week
>> to spray for mosquitoes but they're certainly not as bad as they were
>> in VT! The ants are just nuts here, though. Enought that I've
>> declared chemical and biological war on them (would go nuclear if my
>> wife had her wishes).
>
>
>Air Force bases seem to attract roaches. Lackland in San Antonio was just
>loaded with them. In your clothes, in the food, in the john, everywhere ...
Wonder why? They didn't properly clean? Food unprotected? Trash? I
haven't even seen the famous Palmetto Bettles. I have seen
Armadillos, the South's version of a Wood Chuck, in the middle of the
road.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:20:55 -0600, "basilisk" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>
>>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>
>>>>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so
>>>>>>>I've
>>>>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>>>>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London.
>>>>>>>Smog
>>>>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a
>>>>>>>day.
>>>>>>>But,
>>>>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>>>>> much fun.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>>>>winters.
>>>>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>>>>
>>>> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
>>>> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
>>>> considerably darker, at least at night.
>>>>
>>>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>>>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
>>>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
>>>
>>>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly. Toledo
>>>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp. They
>>>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the
>>>roaches
>>>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
>>
>> I've lived just up the road in the Auburn, AL area for a year and a
>> half and haven't see a roach yet. The truck comes around once a week
>> to spray for mosquitoes but they're certainly not as bad as they were
>> in VT! The ants are just nuts here, though. Enought that I've
>> declared chemical and biological war on them (would go nuclear if my
>> wife had her wishes).
>
>I live not far from one of the phorid wasp release sites, they are making a
>big difference in the fireant population, fewer and smaller mounds.
>
>http://www.ag.auburn.edu/enpl/fireants/research.php
Neat. I wonder what side effects the phroid flies will have? We
don't have fire ants, rather the really tiny "sugar" ants. In the
spring, fall, and whenever it rains hard they come swarming inside the
house. It wasn't so bad this fall, especially considering the rain,
but we did have a couple of waves. When we bought the house the
underside of the deck looked like it was moving.
In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> > In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > LDosser wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
> >> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
> >> >
> >> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
> >> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Pollution. They are now Number One
> >>
> >
> > The images here are horrific:
> >
> > <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
> > />
>
>
> Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.
The world of Dickens only had "normal" poisons available. We have many
more.
If only the UN control freaks were actually interested in cleaning up
the poisonous shit being poured onto the planet, mostly in the
so-called "developing world" rather than simply stealing wealth from
the people (read: taxpayers in "western" countries) who actually CREATE
the wealth... In the guise of "Carbon".
But the issue isn't about a healthy planet. It's about a wealthy
uberclass that gets to dictate how well we will live.
THAT'S what the HopenChangen conference was all about (oops, I'm
Canadian, I should have said "Aboot").
And as a Canadian, I'm damned proud that the greentards castigated my
country at that farce of a UN event. The Canadian government has the
balls to say "We're not going to destroy our economy to please the
likes of Chavez and Mugabe."
Sweet.
HeyBub wrote:
> LDosser wrote:
>>>
>>
>> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>> still. Indians may be gaining.
>
> Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years
> is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
There's one in wikipedia.
The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
that's only recently begun industrializing and really
participating on the world stage economically.
Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Greg Neill wrote:
>
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>>> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>>
>>> Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years
>>> is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>
>> Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
>> There's one in wikipedia.
>>
>> The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
>> China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
>> 4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
>> that's only recently begun industrializing and really
>> participating on the world stage economically.
>>
>> Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
>> as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.
>
> That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries. Would
be
> like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and
> Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country on
> its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon
> whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries
are
> willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.
The comparison is between economic blocks. As you say, the
EU's common market makes it behave almost like a single entity,
much as the individual U.S. states' economies comprise the U.S.'s
overall economy.
If you take a close look at the U.S., you can see that the
individual states have not 'surrendered' all of their
autonomy either. They have their own economies and sets
of laws, but bow to the Fed for certain cross-jursdictional
matters. Canada is the same way with its Provinces.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Greg Neill wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>>
>>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>>>>> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>>>>
>>>>> Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
years
>>>>> is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>>>
>>>> Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
>>>> There's one in wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
>>>> China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
>>>> 4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
>>>> that's only recently begun industrializing and really
>>>> participating on the world stage economically.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
>>>> as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.
>>>
>>> That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries.
Would be
>>> like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and
>>> Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country
on
>>> its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon
>>> whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries
are
>>> willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.
>>
>> The comparison is between economic blocks. As you say, the
>> EU's common market makes it behave almost like a single entity,
>> much as the individual U.S. states' economies comprise the U.S.'s
>> overall economy.
>>
>
> It's quite a stretch to compare the EU's member nations to the
equivalent
> of US states.
Not when viewed as economic blocks with mutual goals and a
shared currency.
>
>
>> If you take a close look at the U.S., you can see that the
>> individual states have not 'surrendered' all of their
>> autonomy either. They have their own economies and sets
>> of laws, but bow to the Fed for certain cross-jursdictional
>> matters. Canada is the same way with its Provinces.
>
> Again, there is a significant difference between the member nations of
the
> EU vs. the states that comprise the US federal Republic. Each of the EU
> member nations has regions or states within each member nation as well --
> Germany has Saxony, Prussia, etc. Great Britain has England, Ireland,
> Scotland, Wales, etc. Those would be a closer analogy to the US make-up.
I think your'e looking for differences that aren't germaine
to the argument. You can argue similar differences between,
say, Louisianna and California. They are each comprised of
counties, elect their own governments, have representatives
at the 'national' level, etc., They act in concert for
national interests affecting the agglomeration (the U.S.A).
The point is, the EU taken as an economic block now surpasses
the U.S. in GDP. This is one of the reasons why, for example,
OPEC is looking to allow oil trading in Euros as well as U.S.
dollars, the throughts of which horrifies the U.S. bankers.
The Euro is backed by a total economy at least on a par with
that of the U.S.
On Dec 18, 12:32=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> phorbin wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> >> > Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably shitting bricks abo=
ut
> >> > this now.
>
> >> Not really. =A0If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was righ=
t
> >> about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).
>
> > So was I... but I still figure that going with the idea of global
> > warming and reducing carbon footprint, consumption, etc. is the best
> > idea.
>
> > In an dramatic oversimplification:
>
> > If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
> > catastrophic. We lose.
>
> =A0 So, you think that a couple of degree increase in global average
> temperature will be that catastrophic? =A0Despite historical evidence tha=
t it
> has been warmer (Greenland being farmed, Great Britain with vineyards) an=
d
> colder (little ice age) by similar amounts? =A0Just what temperature do y=
ou
> believe is the "ideal" average temperature for the world to be set at?
>
> > If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
> > continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
> > idea of global warming. In short, we win.
>
> =A0 No, we don't just continue to live and have cleaner technologies wher=
e we
> win. =A0If this cap and tax gets passed, the majority of peoples' lifesty=
les
> take a dramatic turn downward, the only people who prosper will the
> governments with the huge tax increases and those selling carbon indulgen=
ces
> (i.e. Al Gore). =A0Electric bills will skyrocket, gas prices will soar. =
=A0The
> trillions of $ this will suck out of the economy will cause devastating
> consequences for generations. =A0It is very likely that people on the low=
er
> ends of the economic scale are going to die because of this -- they won't=
be
> able to afford to heat their homes -- developing nations will be told tha=
t
> they should remain in poverty and not grow and again, people will die, ju=
st
> as they are with the current DDT ban.. =A0... and all for what? =A0To ave=
rt a
> 0.1 C change (per one of the global warmist's estimates), even being
> generous and giving his estimate an order of magnitude bump to 1 C, that =
is
> an awful lot of personal freedom and prosperity to surrender for not much=
,
> if any, gain. =A0You think China and India will go along with this nonsen=
se? =A0
> If not, we have just surrendered the rest of our economy and wealth to
> become a second-class power to them.
>
> > If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
> > manage to do so, we win.
>
> =A0 So you are willing to surrender your future prosperity based upon som=
e
> very flawed models and cooked books? =A0
>
> > I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
> > the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
> > former.
>
> =A0 You aren't looking very deeply at what those liabilities of the forme=
r are
> ultimately going to cost. =A0
>
Phew...wow....*taking deep breath* The end-times must be nigh as I
find myself agreeing with Mark here.
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:57:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>>>> Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
>>>>> never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
>>>>> majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
>>>>> are having an effect.
>>>>
>>>> The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
>>>> using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is
>>>> very strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political
>>>> and financial reasons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Care to list that "handful" of people?
>>>
>
> Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Hanson at NASA, Keith Briffa, and a few others
>at East Anglia, NASA, and NOAA.
>
> Willing complicity by the media: Seth Borenstein of AP:
><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/aps-seth-borenstein-is-just-too-damn-
>cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/>
>
>>>> Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came
>>>> from, the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."
>>>
>>> Cite, please.
>>>
>>
>> "The Dog Ate It"
>>
>> "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing
>> away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global
>> warming are based. "
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>>
>>
>> Refusal to release data they DO have:
>>
>> "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
>> temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
>> Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
>> http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/climategate-and-britains-foi/
>>
>>
>> And absolutely fudging of data:
>>
>> "Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw
>> data looks
>> completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
>> temperature readings show
>> none whatsoever!"
>> http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
>
>
> In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"
Whut up wi dat? Can't googlit. Cite?
> By the way, not just New Zealand, Australia as well:
><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/>
Holy Shit, Batman! This is proof that there is man-made global
warming! The only catch is that it does not exist in reality,
IT EXISTS ONLY IN THE CHARTS MADE BY ALARMISTS!
I disagreed entirely with Willis' second paragraph. --snip--
"The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People
say Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information
Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists
papers out of the journals
but that doesnt affect the data, the
data is still good. Which sounds reasonable. --snip--
That is totally unreasonable to me.
Yeah, the coinkidink that GISS (c/o James Hansen, rabid alarmist)
adjustments exactly match GHCN adjustments is amazing. I doubt they
ever talked about it, don't you? <kaff,kaff> Could Hansen have said
"Hey, here's code for a nifty formula for calculating adjustments
which will save you 90 hours of research." to GHCN? It wouldn't
surprise me.
Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably shitting bricks about
this now. I'm truly happy to se the truth finally make its way out
from under the coverup. Will the Nobel Committee ask Bama and Algore
to return their trophies (and monies)? Will Hansen be shot (as a
traitor, of course) for starting all of this crap back in '88? <bseg>
Tune in next week for the exciting drawn-out-fight/conclusion!
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> Do some more research, Lobby. It will make you very happy, indeed, to
> live in this era vs. the grueling Victorian one. No more gruel today,
> either!
Ah, the Good Old Days.
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:13:18 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > LDosser wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>> >
>>> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
>>> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>
>>
>> The images here are horrific:
>>
>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
>> />
>
>
>Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell.
From what I remember in high school, those pics could have been from
the USA 40 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.
>Dickens never saw anything this bad.
I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
London's back yards were open pools of shit where everyone tossed
their chamber pot sewage every morning. It finally seeped down and
contaminated all their wells. Why do you suppose there were all those
outbreaks of cholera and everyone could drink only beer or ale?
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/london.htm
(I can't believe I'm quoting these libtards.)
http://ourwardfamily.com/victorian_london.htm
"The Victorian city of London was a city of startling contrasts. New
building and affluent development went hand in hand with horribly
overcrowded slums where people lived in the worst conditions
imaginable. The population surged during the 19th century, from about
1 million in 1800 to over 6 million a century later. This growth far
exceeded London's ability to look after the basic needs of its
citizens.
A combination of coal-fired stoves and poor sanitation made the air
heavy and foul-smelling. Immense amounts of raw sewage was dumped
straight into the Thames River. Even royals were not immune from the
stench of London - when Queen Victoria occupied Buckingham Palace her
apartments were ventilated through the common sewers, a fact that was
not disclosed until some 40 years later.
Upon this scene entered an unlikely hero, an engineer named Joseph
Bazalgette. Bazalgette was responsible for the building of over 2100
km of tunnels and pipes to divert sewage outside the city. This made a
drastic impact on the death rate, and outbreaks of cholera dropped
dramatically after Bazlgette's work was finished. For an encore,
Bazalgette was also responsible for the design of the Embankment, and
the Battersea, Hammersmith, and Albert Bridges."
http://ourwardfamily.com/children_of_the_1800%27s.htm#Death%20and%20disease
"Victorian children were very close to death and suffering. In the
1830s almost half the funerals in London were for children under ten
years old. Many people died from infections and diseases that we would
rarely die of today, such as measles and scarlet fever. Children often
experienced the death of a parent, brother or sister. If one of their
parents died, wealthy children were expected to go into mourning and
wear black clothing for up to a year. They may also have worn mourning
jewellery such as a bracelet of plaited hair removed from the head of
a dead relative.
Poor children were more likely to suffer from death and disease. Many
lived in dirty, crowded conditions and shared living accommodation
with other families. They often lived in homes without heat where the
only furniture was a heap of rags and straw. The lack of nutritious
food, toilet facilities and the poor quality of drinking water
resulted in serious cases of diarrhea, typhoid and other infections.
Raw sewage in the drinking water and the stench of the River Thames
also made people feel almost constantly sick. Many people could not
afford to visit a doctor or pay for medicines. Although the Great
Ormond Street Hospital for sick children was founded in 1852, most
sick children continued to be cared for at home in dirty and crowded
conditions. Babies were especially likely to become ill and up to half
of all poor children born in London died in their first year."
Do some more research, Lobby. It will make you very happy, indeed, to
live in this era vs. the grueling Victorian one. No more gruel today,
either!
--
This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards,
at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still,
it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now
spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and
stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even
the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court
of public opiniona court that, thanks to the Web, is one where
eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:13:18 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> > LDosser wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>>> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>>> >
>>>> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
>>>> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>>
>>>
>>> The images here are horrific:
>>>
>>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
>>> />
>>
>>
>>Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell.
>
> From what I remember in high school, those pics could have been from
> the USA 40 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.
>
>
>>Dickens never saw anything this bad.
>
> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
>
> London's back yards were open pools of shit where everyone tossed
> their chamber pot sewage every morning. It finally seeped down and
> contaminated all their wells. Why do you suppose there were all those
> outbreaks of cholera and everyone could drink only beer or ale?
>
> http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/london.htm
> (I can't believe I'm quoting these libtards.)
>
> http://ourwardfamily.com/victorian_london.htm
> "The Victorian city of London was a city of startling contrasts. New
> building and affluent development went hand in hand with horribly
> overcrowded slums where people lived in the worst conditions
> imaginable. The population surged during the 19th century, from about
> 1 million in 1800 to over 6 million a century later. This growth far
> exceeded London's ability to look after the basic needs of its
> citizens.
>
> A combination of coal-fired stoves and poor sanitation made the air
> heavy and foul-smelling. Immense amounts of raw sewage was dumped
> straight into the Thames River. Even royals were not immune from the
> stench of London - when Queen Victoria occupied Buckingham Palace her
> apartments were ventilated through the common sewers, a fact that was
> not disclosed until some 40 years later.
>
> Upon this scene entered an unlikely hero, an engineer named Joseph
> Bazalgette. Bazalgette was responsible for the building of over 2100
> km of tunnels and pipes to divert sewage outside the city. This made a
> drastic impact on the death rate, and outbreaks of cholera dropped
> dramatically after Bazlgette's work was finished. For an encore,
> Bazalgette was also responsible for the design of the Embankment, and
> the Battersea, Hammersmith, and Albert Bridges."
>
> http://ourwardfamily.com/children_of_the_1800%27s.htm#Death%20and%20disease
> "Victorian children were very close to death and suffering. In the
> 1830s almost half the funerals in London were for children under ten
> years old. Many people died from infections and diseases that we would
> rarely die of today, such as measles and scarlet fever. Children often
> experienced the death of a parent, brother or sister. If one of their
> parents died, wealthy children were expected to go into mourning and
> wear black clothing for up to a year. They may also have worn mourning
> jewellery such as a bracelet of plaited hair removed from the head of
> a dead relative.
>
> Poor children were more likely to suffer from death and disease. Many
> lived in dirty, crowded conditions and shared living accommodation
> with other families. They often lived in homes without heat where the
> only furniture was a heap of rags and straw. The lack of nutritious
> food, toilet facilities and the poor quality of drinking water
> resulted in serious cases of diarrhea, typhoid and other infections.
> Raw sewage in the drinking water and the stench of the River Thames
> also made people feel almost constantly sick. Many people could not
> afford to visit a doctor or pay for medicines. Although the Great
> Ormond Street Hospital for sick children was founded in 1852, most
> sick children continued to be cared for at home in dirty and crowded
> conditions. Babies were especially likely to become ill and up to half
> of all poor children born in London died in their first year."
>
> Do some more research, Lobby. It will make you very happy, indeed, to
> live in this era vs. the grueling Victorian one. No more gruel today,
> either!
>
> --
> This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards,
> at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still,
> it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now
> spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and
> stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even
> the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court
> of public opinion-a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where
> eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:13:18 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> > LDosser wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>>> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>>> >
>>>> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
>>>> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>>
>>>
>>> The images here are horrific:
>>>
>>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
>>> />
>>
>>
>>Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell.
>
> From what I remember in high school, those pics could have been from
> the USA 40 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.
Not even close!! And I lived it. Not even when the last fish died in Lake
Erie. Not when the Cuyahoga RIVER went on fire. Not close at all. What high
school you go to?
>
>
>>Dickens never saw anything this bad.
>
> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
>
> London's back yards were open pools of shit where everyone tossed
> their chamber pot sewage every morning. It finally seeped down and
> contaminated all their wells. Why do you suppose there were all those
> outbreaks of cholera and everyone could drink only beer or ale?
I'll see your Bullshit and raise it. In Dickens' time the shit was not
flowing downhill to the Continent. In Dickens time it affected a few
hundred thousand people in mainly European cities. In China it is Billions
and the crap blows across the Pacific and flows into the Pacific. Dickens
would have fainted dead away.
FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so I've
seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London. Smog
so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a day. But,
hey, we had Public Transportation.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
Nay, kind sir, wrong species!
Be reminded that the major mode of transportation in London in those day
was equine, not bovine. And, if you've ever had to clean out a horse
stall twice in 12 hours ... well, you do the math.
Judging from the comments herein it is obvious that "horse shit"
operates under the Theory of Conservation of Energy, the amount remains
constant, albeit in a different form. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
phorbin wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> > Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably shitting bricks about
>> > this now.
>>
>> Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
>> about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).
>
> So was I... but I still figure that going with the idea of global
> warming and reducing carbon footprint, consumption, etc. is the best
> idea.
>
> In an dramatic oversimplification:
>
> If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
> catastrophic. We lose.
>
So, you think that a couple of degree increase in global average
temperature will be that catastrophic? Despite historical evidence that it
has been warmer (Greenland being farmed, Great Britain with vineyards) and
colder (little ice age) by similar amounts? Just what temperature do you
believe is the "ideal" average temperature for the world to be set at?
> If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
> continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
> idea of global warming. In short, we win.
>
No, we don't just continue to live and have cleaner technologies where we
win. If this cap and tax gets passed, the majority of peoples' lifestyles
take a dramatic turn downward, the only people who prosper will the
governments with the huge tax increases and those selling carbon indulgences
(i.e. Al Gore). Electric bills will skyrocket, gas prices will soar. The
trillions of $ this will suck out of the economy will cause devastating
consequences for generations. It is very likely that people on the lower
ends of the economic scale are going to die because of this -- they won't be
able to afford to heat their homes -- developing nations will be told that
they should remain in poverty and not grow and again, people will die, just
as they are with the current DDT ban.. ... and all for what? To avert a
0.1 C change (per one of the global warmist's estimates), even being
generous and giving his estimate an order of magnitude bump to 1 C, that is
an awful lot of personal freedom and prosperity to surrender for not much,
if any, gain. You think China and India will go along with this nonsense?
If not, we have just surrendered the rest of our economy and wealth to
become a second-class power to them.
> If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
> manage to do so, we win.
>
So you are willing to surrender your future prosperity based upon some
very flawed models and cooked books?
> I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
> the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
> former.
You aren't looking very deeply at what those liabilities of the former are
ultimately going to cost.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably shitting bricks about
> this now.
Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:18 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> > Senor Blanchard and other alarmists are probably shitting bricks about
> > this now.
>
> Not really. If I'm wrong it'll,just balance out the time I was right
> about (the lack of) those WMD in Iraq :-).
So was I... but I still figure that going with the idea of global
warming and reducing carbon footprint, consumption, etc. is the best
idea.
In an dramatic oversimplification:
If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
catastrophic. We lose.
If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
idea of global warming. In short, we win.
If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
manage to do so, we win.
I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
former.
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:39:14 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
>
>Nay, kind sir, wrong species!
>
>Be reminded that the major mode of transportation in London in those day
>was equine, not bovine. And, if you've ever had to clean out a horse
>stall twice in 12 hours ... well, you do the math.
>
>Judging from the comments herein it is obvious that "horse shit"
>operates under the Theory of Conservation of Energy, the amount remains
>constant, albeit in a different form. ;)
Then we can agree, Sir Swingy, that London was but a shitty place to
live in times of Vic.
--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
============================================
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:42 -0800, LDosser wrote:
> Forgot to mention we Still had horseshit in the streets of Glasgow in
> the 1940-1950. Milk and coal were still delivered by horse cart and the
> 'rag and bone man' would come round with a horse cart now and then. Plus
> police patrols on horse back.
Same thing in Louisville KY. Except the junk man had a mule instead of a
horse. Getting to ride on the junk wagon and hold the reins was a big
thrill for me when I was 7 or 8. Of course, just like the milk horse,
the mule knew the route by heart. I don't remember how coal came, but
ice also came by horse.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:13:18 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> > LDosser wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>>>> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
>>>>> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The images here are horrific:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
>>>> />
>>>
>>>
>>>Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell.
>>
>> From what I remember in high school, those pics could have been from
>> the USA 40 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.
>
>Not even close!! And I lived it. Not even when the last fish died in Lake
>Erie. Not when the Cuyahoga RIVER went on fire. Not close at all. What high
>school you go to?
I remember seeing tons of pictures just like that as a teen. I never
physically saw any of the pollution, though. Vista High, Vista CA.
Back then, Vista's population was 14,000 people. I still prefer small
towns, but I'm not as optimistic about fair government any longer.
>>>Dickens never saw anything this bad.
>>
>> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
>>
>> London's back yards were open pools of shit where everyone tossed
>> their chamber pot sewage every morning. It finally seeped down and
>> contaminated all their wells. Why do you suppose there were all those
>> outbreaks of cholera and everyone could drink only beer or ale?
>
>I'll see your Bullshit and raise it. In Dickens' time the shit was not
>flowing downhill to the Continent. In Dickens time it affected a few
>hundred thousand people in mainly European cities. In China it is Billions
>and the crap blows across the Pacific and flows into the Pacific. Dickens
>would have fainted dead away.
No, he'd probably have thought it was merely more of the same...IF
he'd known about it. Things weren't as global back then, especially
concerning China.
>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so I've
>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London. Smog
>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a day. But,
>hey, we had Public Transportation.
Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
much fun.
--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
============================================
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:39:14 -0600, the infamous Swingman
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
>>
>>Nay, kind sir, wrong species!
>>
>>Be reminded that the major mode of transportation in London in those day
>>was equine, not bovine. And, if you've ever had to clean out a horse
>>stall twice in 12 hours ... well, you do the math.
>>
>>Judging from the comments herein it is obvious that "horse shit"
>>operates under the Theory of Conservation of Energy, the amount remains
>>constant, albeit in a different form. ;)
>
> Then we can agree, Sir Swingy, that London was but a shitty place to
> live in times of Vic.
>
> --------------------------------------------
> -- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
> ============================================
Forgot to mention we Still had horseshit in the streets of Glasgow in the
1940-1950. Milk and coal were still delivered by horse cart and the 'rag and
bone man' would come round with a horse cart now and then. Plus police
patrols on horse back.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:42 -0800, LDosser wrote:
>
>> Forgot to mention we Still had horseshit in the streets of Glasgow in
>> the 1940-1950. Milk and coal were still delivered by horse cart and the
>> 'rag and bone man' would come round with a horse cart now and then. Plus
>> police patrols on horse back.
>
> Same thing in Louisville KY. Except the junk man had a mule instead of a
> horse. Getting to ride on the junk wagon and hold the reins was a big
> thrill for me when I was 7 or 8. Of course, just like the milk horse,
> the mule knew the route by heart. I don't remember how coal came, but
> ice also came by horse.
>
The Really neat part was still having blacksmiths and farriers. Helped shoe
a Clydesdale when I was 15. Heavy footed critters.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:13:18 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> > LDosser wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>>>>> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past
>>>>>> > five
>>>>>> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The images here are horrific:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
>>>>> />
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell.
>>>
>>> From what I remember in high school, those pics could have been from
>>> the USA 40 years ago. We've come a long way, baby.
>>
>>Not even close!! And I lived it. Not even when the last fish died in Lake
>>Erie. Not when the Cuyahoga RIVER went on fire. Not close at all. What
>>high
>>school you go to?
>
> I remember seeing tons of pictures just like that as a teen. I never
> physically saw any of the pollution, though. Vista High, Vista CA.
> Back then, Vista's population was 14,000 people. I still prefer small
> towns, but I'm not as optimistic about fair government any longer.
>
>
>>>>Dickens never saw anything this bad.
>>>
>>> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
>>>
>>> London's back yards were open pools of shit where everyone tossed
>>> their chamber pot sewage every morning. It finally seeped down and
>>> contaminated all their wells. Why do you suppose there were all those
>>> outbreaks of cholera and everyone could drink only beer or ale?
>>
>>I'll see your Bullshit and raise it. In Dickens' time the shit was not
>>flowing downhill to the Continent. In Dickens time it affected a few
>>hundred thousand people in mainly European cities. In China it is Billions
>>and the crap blows across the Pacific and flows into the Pacific. Dickens
>>would have fainted dead away.
>
> No, he'd probably have thought it was merely more of the same...IF
> he'd known about it. Things weren't as global back then, especially
> concerning China.
>
>
>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so I've
>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London.
>>Smog
>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a day.
>>But,
>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>
> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
> much fun.
Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark winters.
Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
>
>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly. Toledo
>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp. They
>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the roaches
>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
I don't recall the roaches in AR, but those in Phoenix, when I walked
across the street to get beer barefooted at 10pm, were large enough to
grab a guy by the toe, toss them out of their way, and continue on
down the sidewalk.
--
REMEMBER: The sooner you fall behind,
the more time you'll have to catch up!
"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so
>>>>>>I've
>>>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>>>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London.
>>>>>>Smog
>>>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a
>>>>>>day.
>>>>>>But,
>>>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>>>> much fun.
>>>>
>>>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>>>winters.
>>>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>>>
>>> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
>>> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
>>> considerably darker, at least at night.
>>>
>>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
>>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
>>
>>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly. Toledo
>>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp. They
>>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the
>>roaches
>>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
>
> I've lived just up the road in the Auburn, AL area for a year and a
> half and haven't see a roach yet. The truck comes around once a week
> to spray for mosquitoes but they're certainly not as bad as they were
> in VT! The ants are just nuts here, though. Enought that I've
> declared chemical and biological war on them (would go nuclear if my
> wife had her wishes).
Air Force bases seem to attract roaches. Lackland in San Antonio was just
loaded with them. In your clothes, in the food, in the john, everywhere ...
"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so
>>>>>>I've
>>>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>>>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London.
>>>>>>Smog
>>>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a
>>>>>>day.
>>>>>>But,
>>>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>>>> much fun.
>>>>
>>>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>>>winters.
>>>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>>>
>>> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
>>> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
>>> considerably darker, at least at night.
>>>
>>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
>>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
>>
>>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly. Toledo
>>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp. They
>>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the
>>roaches
>>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
>
> I've lived just up the road in the Auburn, AL area for a year and a
> half and haven't see a roach yet. The truck comes around once a week
> to spray for mosquitoes but they're certainly not as bad as they were
> in VT! The ants are just nuts here, though. Enought that I've
> declared chemical and biological war on them (would go nuclear if my
> wife had her wishes).
I live not far from one of the phorid wasp release sites, they are making a
big difference in the fireant population, fewer and smaller mounds.
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/enpl/fireants/research.php
basilisk
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so
>>>>>I've
>>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London.
>>>>>Smog
>>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a day.
>>>>>But,
>>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>>> much fun.
>>>
>>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>>winters.
>>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>>
>> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
>> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
>> considerably darker, at least at night.
>>
>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
>
>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly. Toledo
>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp. They
>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the roaches
>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
I've lived just up the road in the Auburn, AL area for a year and a
half and haven't see a roach yet. The truck comes around once a week
to spray for mosquitoes but they're certainly not as bad as they were
in VT! The ants are just nuts here, though. Enought that I've
declared chemical and biological war on them (would go nuclear if my
wife had her wishes).
Greg Neill wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>>>> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>>>
>>>> Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
> years
>>>> is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>>
>>> Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
>>> There's one in wikipedia.
>>>
>>> The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
>>> China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
>>> 4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
>>> that's only recently begun industrializing and really
>>> participating on the world stage economically.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
>>> as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.
>>
>> That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries. Would
> be
>> like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and
>> Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country on
>> its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon
>> whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries
> are
>> willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.
>
> The comparison is between economic blocks. As you say, the
> EU's common market makes it behave almost like a single entity,
> much as the individual U.S. states' economies comprise the U.S.'s
> overall economy.
>
It's quite a stretch to compare the EU's member nations to the equivalent
of US states.
> If you take a close look at the U.S., you can see that the
> individual states have not 'surrendered' all of their
> autonomy either. They have their own economies and sets
> of laws, but bow to the Fed for certain cross-jursdictional
> matters. Canada is the same way with its Provinces.
Again, there is a significant difference between the member nations of the
EU vs. the states that comprise the US federal Republic. Each of the EU
member nations has regions or states within each member nation as well --
Germany has Saxony, Prussia, etc. Great Britain has England, Ireland,
Scotland, Wales, etc. Those would be a closer analogy to the US make-up.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
>> continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
>> idea of global warming. In short, we win.
>>
>
> No, we don't just continue to live and have cleaner technologies where we
> win. If this cap and tax gets passed, the majority of peoples' lifestyles
> take a dramatic turn downward, the only people who prosper will the
> governments with the huge tax increases and those selling carbon
> indulgences
> (i.e. Al Gore). Electric bills will skyrocket, gas prices will soar. The
> trillions of $ this will suck out of the economy will cause devastating
> consequences for generations. It is very likely that people on the lower
> ends of the economic scale are going to die because of this -- they won't
> be
> able to afford to heat their homes -- developing nations will be told that
> they should remain in poverty and not grow and again, people will die,
> just
> as they are with the current DDT ban.. ... and all for what? To avert a
> 0.1 C change (per one of the global warmist's estimates), even being
> generous and giving his estimate an order of magnitude bump to 1 C, that
> is
> an awful lot of personal freedom and prosperity to surrender for not much,
> if any, gain. You think China and India will go along with this nonsense?
Of course not and they won't be asked to. The claim is these are "developing
countries" and should'nt be burdaned with such a thing. The main target is
the US as we are the biggest poluters. Maybe so as compared to, say,
Germany. A quick look at any map and it should be obvious to any intelligent
person why that is.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so I've
>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London.
>>>Smog
>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a day.
>>>But,
>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>
>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>> much fun.
>
>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark winters.
>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
considerably darker, at least at night.
For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
But my favorite childhood memory was shooting Roman Candles into the
lake on the 4th of July. These were real flare-like fireworks which
would shoot out a spray of colored sparks before the fiery ball shot
out 75' over the lake to hiss into middle of the lake. Each RC had at
least half a dozen colored flares, so each lasted several minutes. We
had real cherry bombs and several types of real firecrackers back
then, too. Everything is "safe and sane" nowadays, and no frackin'
fun at all.
So, now tell me about the unexploded mortar rounds and 500 lb. bombs
you played with (snd set off, of course) Over There!
--
REMEMBER: The sooner you fall behind,
the more time you'll have to catch up!
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:42 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:39:14 -0600, the infamous Swingman
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
>>>>
>>>>Nay, kind sir, wrong species!
>>>>
>>>>Be reminded that the major mode of transportation in London in those day
>>>>was equine, not bovine. And, if you've ever had to clean out a horse
>>>>stall twice in 12 hours ... well, you do the math.
>>>>
>>>>Judging from the comments herein it is obvious that "horse shit"
>>>>operates under the Theory of Conservation of Energy, the amount remains
>>>>constant, albeit in a different form. ;)
>>>
>>> Then we can agree, Sir Swingy, that London was but a shitty place to
>>> live in times of Vic.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> -- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
>>> ============================================
>>
>>
>>Forgot to mention we Still had horseshit in the streets of Glasgow in the
>>1940-1950. Milk and coal were still delivered by horse cart and the 'rag
>>and
>>bone man' would come round with a horse cart now and then. Plus police
>>patrols on horse back.
>
> OK, Aqualung. You win. (Or are you "crosseyed Mary"? <chortle>
>
> --snip--
>
> Aqualung
> Sitting on a park bench
> eyeing little girls with bad intent.
> Snot running down his nose
> greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes.
> Drying in the cold sun
> Watching as the frilly panties run.
> Feeling like a dead duck
> spitting out pieces of his broken luck.
>
> Sun streaking cold
> an old man wandering lonely.
> Taking time
> the only way he knows.
> Leg hurting bad,
> as he bends to pick a dog-end
> he goes down to the bog
> and warms his feet.
>
> Feeling alone
> the army's up the rode
> salvation à la mode and
> a cup of tea.
> Aqualung my friend
> don't start away uneasy
> you poor old sod, you see, it's only me.
> Do you still remember
> December's foggy freeze
> when the ice that
> clings on to your beard is
> screaming agony.
> And you snatch your rattling last breaths
> with deep-sea-diver sounds,
> and the flowers bloom like
> madness in the spring.
>
> --snip--
Gave up the fags a few years back. Mind you, I do like a cuppa ...
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s, so
>>>>I've
>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with no
>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for London.
>>>>Smog
>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a day.
>>>>But,
>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>
>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>> much fun.
>>
>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>winters.
>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>
> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
> considerably darker, at least at night.
>
> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly. Toledo
was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp. They
went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the roaches
at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:42 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:39:14 -0600, the infamous Swingman
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll have to call "Bullshit" on that one, Lobby. Dickens _lived_ it.
>>>
>>>Nay, kind sir, wrong species!
>>>
>>>Be reminded that the major mode of transportation in London in those day
>>>was equine, not bovine. And, if you've ever had to clean out a horse
>>>stall twice in 12 hours ... well, you do the math.
>>>
>>>Judging from the comments herein it is obvious that "horse shit"
>>>operates under the Theory of Conservation of Energy, the amount remains
>>>constant, albeit in a different form. ;)
>>
>> Then we can agree, Sir Swingy, that London was but a shitty place to
>> live in times of Vic.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> -- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
>> ============================================
>
>
>Forgot to mention we Still had horseshit in the streets of Glasgow in the
>1940-1950. Milk and coal were still delivered by horse cart and the 'rag and
>bone man' would come round with a horse cart now and then. Plus police
>patrols on horse back.
OK, Aqualung. You win. (Or are you "crosseyed Mary"? <chortle>
--snip--
Aqualung
Sitting on a park bench
eyeing little girls with bad intent.
Snot running down his nose
greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes.
Drying in the cold sun
Watching as the frilly panties run.
Feeling like a dead duck
spitting out pieces of his broken luck.
Sun streaking cold
an old man wandering lonely.
Taking time
the only way he knows.
Leg hurting bad,
as he bends to pick a dog-end
he goes down to the bog
and warms his feet.
Feeling alone
the army's up the rode
salvation à la mode and
a cup of tea.
Aqualung my friend
don't start away uneasy
you poor old sod, you see, it's only me.
Do you still remember
December's foggy freeze
when the ice that
clings on to your beard is
screaming agony.
And you snatch your rattling last breaths
with deep-sea-diver sounds,
and the flowers bloom like
madness in the spring.
--snip--
--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
============================================
LDosser wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
... snip
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The images here are horrific:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-
china
>>>> />
>>>
>>>
>>> Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.
>>
>> Hard to tell if that is universally real or just another media-induced
>> hype. Time and other media outlet photographers can embellish stories
>> into
>> the surreal. OTOH, if that is universally real, then we really don't
>> have much to fear long-term from China as that kind of local destruction
>> will
>> lead to killing themselves off from within. That kind of thing falls
>> into the "poop in your own bathtub" realm of environmental destruction;
>> something
>> that is real, demonstrable, and controllable. It is also something
>> completely unsustainable long-term.
>
>
> Unfortunately those of us on the left coast share the tub with them and
> the rest of the Northern Hemisphere breathes their air
I will grant you that, but remember, they are living *in* that stuff. You
have the benefit of several thousand miles and an ocean to dilute it. The
effects are going to be much more devastating that close in and
concentrated.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
phorbin wrote:
>
> In an dramatic oversimplification:
>
> If you are wrong and we do little to nothing, the consequences are
> catastrophic. We lose.
>
> If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
> continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
> idea of global warming. In short, we win.
>
> If you are wrong and we do what's needed to mitigate the issue and we
> manage to do so, we win.
>
> I am self-interested enough to believe that the benefits presented by
> the latter two, roughly stated cases outweigh the liabilities of the
> former.
That's the famous argument put forth by Pascal to encourage belief in God.
If there is no god, the cost of believing is small. If there IS a god, the
rewards are immense.
In the environment case, it's just the reverse. If there IS global warming,
the result of doing nothing is almost inconsequential (and may even be
beneficial). If there is NO anthropogenic global warming, the cost of
averting it is astronomical. The worst of both worlds is to reduce the human
condition to one that is deprived, brutal, and short and STILL end up with
global warming.
LDosser wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > LDosser wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>> >
>>> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
>>> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>
>>
>> The images here are horrific:
>>
>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
>> />
>
>
> Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.
Hard to tell if that is universally real or just another media-induced
hype. Time and other media outlet photographers can embellish stories into
the surreal. OTOH, if that is universally real, then we really don't have
much to fear long-term from China as that kind of local destruction will
lead to killing themselves off from within. That kind of thing falls into
the "poop in your own bathtub" realm of environmental destruction; something
that is real, demonstrable, and controllable. It is also something
completely unsustainable long-term.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> If you are right and we do everything to avert global warming, we
>>> continue to live and have cleaner technologies in place driven by the
>>> idea of global warming. In short, we win.
>>>
>>
>> No, we don't just continue to live and have cleaner technologies where
>> we
>> win. If this cap and tax gets passed, the majority of peoples'
>> lifestyles
>> take a dramatic turn downward, the only people who prosper will the
>> governments with the huge tax increases and those selling carbon
>> indulgences
>> (i.e. Al Gore). Electric bills will skyrocket, gas prices will soar.
>> The
>> trillions of $ this will suck out of the economy will cause devastating
>> consequences for generations. It is very likely that people on the lower
>> ends of the economic scale are going to die because of this -- they won't
>> be
>> able to afford to heat their homes -- developing nations will be told
>> that
>> they should remain in poverty and not grow and again, people will die,
>> just
>> as they are with the current DDT ban.. ... and all for what? To avert a
>> 0.1 C change (per one of the global warmist's estimates), even being
>> generous and giving his estimate an order of magnitude bump to 1 C, that
>> is
>> an awful lot of personal freedom and prosperity to surrender for not
>> much,
>> if any, gain. You think China and India will go along with this
>> nonsense?
>
> Of course not and they won't be asked to. The claim is these are
> "developing countries" and should'nt be burdaned with such a thing. The
> main target is the US as we are the biggest poluters. Maybe so as compared
> to, say, Germany. A quick look at any map and it should be obvious to any
> intelligent person why that is.
>
The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing still.
Indians may be gaining.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>>>
>>
>> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>> still. Indians may be gaining.
>
> Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
> years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>
Pollution. They are now Number One
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:47:00 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> If there IS global
>> warming, the result of doing nothing is almost inconsequential (and
>> may even be beneficial).
>
> sigh.
Actually, according to the IPCC report he's pretty close to the mark. The
alarmists give this vision of coastal cities being hundreds of feet under
water and radically changed coastlines and "another Venus" and the like but
that's not what the IPCC Is asserting is going to happen. Instead they're
saying things like it will rain more in one area and less in another (and
it's _very_ questionable whether their models are accurate at that level of
detail even if they do have the broad outline right, which in itself is
debatable) and that sort of thing.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > LDosser wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>> >
>> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
>> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>> >
>>
>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>
>
> The images here are horrific:
>
> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
> />
Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:43:22 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:30:10 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s,
>>>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>>>I've
>>>>>>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some with
>>>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for
>>>>>>>>>London.
>>>>>>>>>Smog
>>>>>>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a
>>>>>>>>>day.
>>>>>>>>>But,
>>>>>>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>>>>>>> much fun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>>>>>>winters.
>>>>>>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
>>>>>> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark winters
>>>>>> considerably darker, at least at night.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>>>>>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away the
>>>>>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base lake.
>>>>>
>>>>>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly.
>>>>>Toledo
>>>>>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp.
>>>>>They
>>>>>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the
>>>>>roaches
>>>>>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
>>>>
>>>> I've lived just up the road in the Auburn, AL area for a year and a
>>>> half and haven't see a roach yet. The truck comes around once a week
>>>> to spray for mosquitoes but they're certainly not as bad as they were
>>>> in VT! The ants are just nuts here, though. Enought that I've
>>>> declared chemical and biological war on them (would go nuclear if my
>>>> wife had her wishes).
>>>
>>>
>>>Air Force bases seem to attract roaches. Lackland in San Antonio was just
>>>loaded with them. In your clothes, in the food, in the john, everywhere
>>>...
>>
>> Wonder why? They didn't properly clean? Food unprotected? Trash?
>
>They liked the uniforms?
None on Marine bases?
>> I
>> haven't even seen the famous Palmetto Bettles.
>
>Think big.
So I've heard.
>> I have seen
>> Armadillos, the South's version of a Wood Chuck, in the middle of the
>> road.
>
>Hear them called possum on the half shell.
Like I indicated, I think of them as armored Woodchucks.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To prove to the Woodchuck that it could be done.
"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:43:22 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:30:10 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:50:40 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:12:52 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>FWIW, I lived in a Glasgow tenement in the late 1940s-early 1950s,
>>>>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>>>>I've
>>>>>>>>>>seen some of Dickens up 'close' and personal. Coal fires. Some
>>>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>>>>bathrooms. Back "Green" pretty close to what you described for
>>>>>>>>>>London.
>>>>>>>>>>Smog
>>>>>>>>>>so damn thick every other kid had asthma. Parents all smoking 50 a
>>>>>>>>>>day.
>>>>>>>>>>But,
>>>>>>>>>>hey, we had Public Transportation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, at leasft you had that. <kaff, kaff> It doesn't sound like
>>>>>>>>> much fun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, there were the bombed out buildings to play in. And the dark
>>>>>>>>winters.
>>>>>>>>Did I mention it was uphill both ways ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, that makes it all worthwhile. I grew up on LRAFB in Little Rock,
>>>>>>> Arkansas USA. _All_ our nights were dark. That made our dark
>>>>>>> winters
>>>>>>> considerably darker, at least at night.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For play, we got to run through the DDT fogging truck output every
>>>>>>> week in the summers. Air Police with 8ga shotguns would blow away
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> larger nests of water moccasins and cottonmouths around the Base
>>>>>>> lake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When we moved to the US (Toledo) we also had the DDT trucks weekly.
>>>>>>Toledo
>>>>>>was built on something the Native population knew as the Black Swamp.
>>>>>>They
>>>>>>went around it. Stupid white eyes Lived in it. Say, how big were the
>>>>>>roaches
>>>>>>at LRAFB? I did several months at Gunter AFB, Montgomery, AL.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've lived just up the road in the Auburn, AL area for a year and a
>>>>> half and haven't see a roach yet. The truck comes around once a week
>>>>> to spray for mosquitoes but they're certainly not as bad as they were
>>>>> in VT! The ants are just nuts here, though. Enought that I've
>>>>> declared chemical and biological war on them (would go nuclear if my
>>>>> wife had her wishes).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Air Force bases seem to attract roaches. Lackland in San Antonio was
>>>>just
>>>>loaded with them. In your clothes, in the food, in the john, everywhere
>>>>...
>>>
>>> Wonder why? They didn't properly clean? Food unprotected? Trash?
>>
>>They liked the uniforms?
>
> None on Marine bases?
Don't like the color.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:201220090212437086%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>> news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>> > In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > LDosser wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>> >> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>> >> >
>> >> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past
>> >> > five
>> >> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Pollution. They are now Number One
>> >>
>> >
>> > The images here are horrific:
>> >
>> > <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
>> > />
>>
>>
>> Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.
>
> The world of Dickens only had "normal" poisons available. We have many
> more.
>
> If only the UN control freaks were actually interested in cleaning up
> the poisonous shit being poured onto the planet, mostly in the
> so-called "developing world" rather than simply stealing wealth from
> the people (read: taxpayers in "western" countries) who actually CREATE
> the wealth... In the guise of "Carbon".
>
> But the issue isn't about a healthy planet. It's about a wealthy
> uberclass that gets to dictate how well we will live.
>
> THAT'S what the HopenChangen conference was all about (oops, I'm
> Canadian, I should have said "Aboot").
>
> And as a Canadian, I'm damned proud that the greentards castigated my
> country at that farce of a UN event. The Canadian government has the
> balls to say "We're not going to destroy our economy to please the
> likes of Chavez and Mugabe."
>
> Sweet.
Unfortunately we sent an empty Suit.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>
>> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>> news:191220091008164969%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, LDosser
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> > LDosser wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>>> >> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>>> >
>>>> > Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
>>>> > years is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>>
>>>
>>> The images here are horrific:
>>>
>>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
>>> />
>>
>>
>> Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this bad.
>
> Hard to tell if that is universally real or just another media-induced
> hype. Time and other media outlet photographers can embellish stories into
> the surreal. OTOH, if that is universally real, then we really don't have
> much to fear long-term from China as that kind of local destruction will
> lead to killing themselves off from within. That kind of thing falls into
> the "poop in your own bathtub" realm of environmental destruction;
> something
> that is real, demonstrable, and controllable. It is also something
> completely unsustainable long-term.
Unfortunately those of us on the left coast share the tub with them and the
rest of the Northern Hemisphere breathes their air
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
> ... snip
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pollution. They are now Number One
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The images here are horrific:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-
> china
>>>>> />
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stomach turning!! A vision of Hell. Dickens never saw anything this
>>>> bad.
>>>
>>> Hard to tell if that is universally real or just another media-induced
>>> hype. Time and other media outlet photographers can embellish stories
>>> into
>>> the surreal. OTOH, if that is universally real, then we really don't
>>> have much to fear long-term from China as that kind of local destruction
>>> will
>>> lead to killing themselves off from within. That kind of thing falls
>>> into the "poop in your own bathtub" realm of environmental destruction;
>>> something
>>> that is real, demonstrable, and controllable. It is also something
>>> completely unsustainable long-term.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately those of us on the left coast share the tub with them and
>> the rest of the Northern Hemisphere breathes their air
>
> I will grant you that, but remember, they are living *in* that stuff.
> You
> have the benefit of several thousand miles and an ocean to dilute it. The
> effects are going to be much more devastating that close in and
> concentrated.
No argument on that.
Greg Neill wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Chinese passed us a couple years back. Like we were standing
>>> still. Indians may be gaining.
>>
>> Passed us in what way? Just the INCREASE in our GDP for the past five
> years
>> is greater than the ENTIRE GDP of China.
>
> Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones.
> There's one in wikipedia.
>
> The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars,
> China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
> 4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country
> that's only recently begun industrializing and really
> participating on the world stage economically.
>
> Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union
> as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.
That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries. Would be
like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and
Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country on
its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon
whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries are
willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bob Martin <[email protected]> writes:
>>in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>phorbin wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>>> @swbell.dotnet says...
>>>>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
>>>>> bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
>>>>> priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
>>>>> intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
>>>>> once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
>>>> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
>>>
>>>Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells
>>>us that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.
>>
>>So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...
>
> Then you'd be a fool, since we've been there and know that it is not.
>
> On the other hand, the current hysteria around anthropgenic
> climate change (of which there is little doubt that man changes
> climate, at least locally; consider the Urban Heat Island effect,
> for instance; or land-use changes (why don't tornadoes strike
> big cities, as a rule?)) is based on some pretty iffy science.
>
... snip of explanation of above
>
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT
> Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., U of Colorado
Another bit of evidence of scientific malfeasance and data manipulation to
give the results desired by the warmists:
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/>
Difference between citing this and Politically Correct American? This has
real data and describes methodology, it doesn't imperiously declare "the
science is settled" and those who disagree are luddites spouting nonsense.
To quote paraphrase the high priest of AGW, "They LIED to US! They played
on our FEARS!"
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:25:16 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:
>in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>phorbin wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbell.dotnet says...
>>>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
>>>> bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
>>>> priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
>>>> intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
>>>> once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
>>> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
>>
>>Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
>>that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.
>
>So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...
wait a min. everybody knows the moon is made of swiss cheese! can't
you see the holes? :-]
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:25:16 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>phorbin wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbell.dotnet says...
>>>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
>>>> bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
>>>> priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
>>>> intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
>>>> once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
>>> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
>>
>>Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
>>that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.
>
>So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...
We know for a fact that you're an AGWK alarmist.
--
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen
to what the world tells you you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
In article <[email protected]>,
Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>in 125143 20091209 135918 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>phorbin wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbell.dotnet says...
>>>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being
>>>> bought up. Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth"
>>>> priojects. Once the global warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun
>>>> intended, we will once again be coolong off and those forrests will
>>>> once again be sold off and harvested for fire wood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
>>> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
>>
>>Just the fact that it describes the contrarian view as "nonsense" tells us
>>that it's a propaganda piece not to be taken credibly.
>
>So if I say the moon is made of green cheese ...
You *do* know that there _is_ scientific evidence to support that statement,
don't you?
Back in the 1980s, one of the things NASA did was a seismology experiment --
crashing a ship into the moon, and taking seismograph readings from several
of the Apollo landing sites.
Analysis of the shock patterns transmitted through the body of the moon gave
a 'best match' against a particular variety of un-cured (i.e., 'green') cheese.
I'm *NOT* making this up.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:50:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>> A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
>>> credible some time in the late 80's.
>>
>> Translation: They published articles that disagreed with one or more
>> of your cherished beliefs :-).
>>
>
> Umm, no. I recognize that there are folks out there with whom I
> disagree and who may come to different conclusions based upon various
> viewpoints they may hold. That, however, is not science. That
> belongs more in the fuzzy world of historical interpretation (which
> still should at least be predicated upon historical facts vs.
> historical revisionism, but that's a different discussion) or
> sociology or some of the other more "fuzzy" disciplines.
>
> At some point, Scientific American stopped doing science -- that
> pursuit in which a hypothesis is put forth, experiments formulated
> and conducted, data taken and examined, hypothesis confirmed, refined
> or rejected, and results, along with methodology data documented and
> presented. Instead, they drifted more and more into Politically
> Correct American in which hypothesis was put forth, cherry-picked
> statistics manipulated, graphs generated and presented, and current
> politically acceptable conclusion derived and documented by currently
> popular experts using vigorous assertion as proof.
>
> That's the point at which I became a former subscriber. The irony
> was that they had some very interesting columns prior to that
> describing what they termed "math abuse" -- the manipulation of
> statistics and selective presentation (e.g. selective use of scale,
> smoothing, etc) to guide a preferred interpretation of the data.
Yep. Perusal of the Table of Contents over the past five years or so show a
growing interest in "political" goals: Climate Change (nee "Global
Warming"), green technology, fish kills, drought mitigation, population
control, endangered species, etc.
phorbin wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbell.dotnet says...
>> While forrests are being protected from being harvested and being bought
>> up.
>> Al Gore is making a fortune on "cool the earth" priojects. Once the
>> global
>> warming fad has cooled ;~) no pun intended, we will once again be
>> coolong off and those forrests will once again be sold off and harvested
>> for fire wood.
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-
> climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yjhput9
A piece out of "Politically Correct American"? They stopped being
credible some time in the late 80's.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:26:02 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>> Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
>>> never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
>>> majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
>>> are having an effect.
>>
>> The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
>> using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is very
>> strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political and
>> financial reasons.
>>
>
>Care to list that "handful" of people?
Michael Mann and the East Anglia CRU crew, or parts thereof, come to
immediate mind, sir. Haven't you been following that? They're funded
for their output.
Algore and crew is another handful. The Brit courts mandated that no
fewer that nine of his false claims in the movie had to be stated to
the viewers before the movie could be shown in there schools. Brits
have a horridly liberal/political school faculty, too. Gore is
starting to rake in the carbon credit bucks now.
Paul Ehrlich and a crew for each of his totally defective and
disproved books comes to several more handfuls. He was funded for his
research and for his books. And the POS books of his are still for
sale, ruining young minds anew. <sigh>
James Hanson and computer modeling crew(s).
>> Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came from,
>> the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."
>
>Cite, please.
CRU admitted to _tossing_ raw data during the move to another building
due to lack of storage space. No _real_ scientist in his right mind
ever does that because it serves as a basis for your ongoing research.
DUH! Now the CRU is saying that all the data can be replaced from
original sources, but the collection they had which produced the data
they put out will never be reassembled. I guess that's not too bad of
a thing, as it will surely prove that the graphs they sent out were
not created from the true data, but from a falsely created,
manipulated set, nailing them to the wall.
>The following report was recommended to me today. I haven't had time to
>read it yet, but will. Meantime, for those who are interested:
>
><http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/>
Recommended to you by another alarmist, sir? "Updating the world on
the Latest Climate Science" Science update or data update? Written by
students at what Aussie school, er, University?
OK, they're claiming 2" of sea level rise over the past 15 years. Why
isn't Florida under water? Why isn't everyone moving out of Hawaii,
and off every other island in the world?
Executive Summary: 3.4mm/yr sea level rise.
http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_ES_English.pdf
The London Royal Society calculates net sea level rise in Australia at
1 mm/yr[22] http://www.marine.csiro.au/media/03releases/21jan03.htm
(dead link)
Every report from the IPCC shows -diminishing- forecasts for doom. The
first expected a 4.2 degree increase in global temps by 2100. The
second 3.8, the third 3.5, the fourth 3.26 degrees C. Hansen thought
it would rise 4.2 in '88 and revised it to 2.8 in '08. Monckton and
crew say 0.5 degrees C rise by 2100. Slide 73.
<http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13460116/Lord-Christopher-Moncktons-Power-Point-Bethel-University--Global-Climate-Change-Conference-Oct-14-2009>
These guys say the IPCC is underestimating everything. Hold onto your
hat, Larry. They say the sky is, indeed, falling even faster than
dreaded. <shudder>NOT
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:49:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Climate change: Doest the climate change? Yes. Is man causing
>> this? Hardly plausible let alone proven.
>
> Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there
> never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming
> majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities
> are having an effect.
Your 90% figure may very well be correct. I remind you of what Einstein
said: "No amount of experiments will prove my theory correct, but it only
takes ONE to prove it wrong."
>
> Now I know you (and HeyBub) are going to claim a giant conspiracy of
> all those scientists, but have you considered that the deniers may
> well (and some do for a fact) have ties to economic interests for the
> status quo? That is, those few with credence in the field - I don't
> care about the others.
>
> Someone had a letter in our newspaper a few days ago denying global
> warming because there were more Antarctic icebergs than usual and that
> proved the glaciers were growing and calving. Today a respondent
> pointed out that Antarctic glaciers don't come from icebergs, they
> come from ice fields breaking up. And guess why they're breaking up
> at an increased rate ...
Sigh. Three of the Antartic ice sheets/glaciers are shrinking. Seven are
growing.
>
> The above does not address the question of how much of the warming is
> man made, the first writer totally denied there was any warming. I
> see an awful lot of that. See my sig line :-).
The earth IS probably warming. It's not as warm as it was during the Middle
Ages. Further, more warming is good: Longer growing seasons, etc. An open
Northwest passage, for example, would be a tremendous boon for world trade.
charlie b wrote:
>
> It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the
> consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are
> renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water -
> that you can drink - that we should be concerned about.
Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is just
temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just being
used somewhere.
As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods. They
should import water-intensive food from areas where water is abundant. For
example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.
Of course to do that, they have to develop something from which than can
earn foreign monetary credits with which to buy the food. Perhaps mining
minerals or opening technical support call centers...