There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer and
Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the theory
behind. Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for publication of
this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the paper at the
time he decided to publish it:
"Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim
is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer
review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify
fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many
climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate
pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and
Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely
problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro
and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I
would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a
result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]"
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Very sad!
You trolls live to disagree to try out your prowess to beat somebody`s
brains out. (teacher`s inferiority complex)
When somebody disagrees with your closed minds you announce to the world you
have the power to ignore him or her. A definite indicator of fear of the
unknown and more insecurity complex. This is done to initiate almost all new
comers here that express any knowledge or strong opinion. (teacher`s send
you to the office syndrome)
Welcome back George Watson as a new personality....abrasive.
Indicate if you are or were in the teaching profession in your whining
answers.
BTW: Don`t bother with the PLONK as most of you have already publicly
grandstanded with that and it didn't`t work last time.
----------------------
"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 9/5/2011 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:
> Hope you never have any thing worth while to say, PLONK!
The wooddorkers of the dworld thank you! :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:37:11 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>No, but I'm not going to give them equal weight. The scientist has only his
>data before him. He has NO knowledge of the secondary effects of his
>studies, even if his studies are correct. The politician has input from ALL
>the stakeholders and, as a result, has considerably more insight into the
>consequences.
That's as about a screwed up opinion as I've ever seen. Scientists of
this day and age compare their studies and correlate the effects. Part
of a scientist's mandate is that personal opinion is *not* part of the
equation. A politician on the other hand, has his own agenda, what he
feels would be the best scenario for himself and what he feels is the
best scenario for his country. A politician's opinions are heavily
weighed down by personal opinion. These facts are evident and
diametrically opposed to your comment above.
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:26:32 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Dave in Texas wrote:
>>
>> Lord: "As am I. Why else do you think I planned this great flood?"
>>
>> And after it rained for forty days and forty nights and the earth
>> was cover in floods, Texas got two-tenths.
>>
>
>There is a theory, with much to commend it, that all the water in Texas was
>taken up by the Lord and subsequently dumped on Noah.
>
>History may be repeating itself.
>
Everything is big in Texas.
On Sep 2, 12:17=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer and
> Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the theory
> behind. =A0Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for publication=
of
> this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the paper at t=
he
> time he decided to publish it:
>
> "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their a=
im
> is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous pee=
r
> review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify
> fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many
> climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate
> pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and
> Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely
> problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
> After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro
> and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I
> would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as=
a
> result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]=
"http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Global warming alarmists are a PITA
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 18:36:17 -0400, "Pin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Smitty Two wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <[email protected]>,
>>> Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>>>
>>> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
>>> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe
>>> AGW is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>>>
>>
>> First, I don't CARE what scientists "believe." I'm only interested in what
>> they can prove.
>>
>>
>> And there is a difference between scientists and politicians. Politicians
>> look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate scientists.
>
>You can not be serious, politicians are ruled by lobbies and their party.
>You vote against your party and you may lose a lot.
Or you can acknowledge that your party screwed the pooch and vote
accordingly. It's your choice.
>> The climate scientists say "The earth is warming and mankind is (partly?
>> mostly?) to blame. They then suggest some obvious consequences, i.e.,
>> ocean levels rising.
And we skeptics keep pointing out that the Earth has ice and warmer
ages, regardless of mankind's input. And that the climate scientists'
models are incomplete and innacurate, while they continue misreading
the output from models. <sigh>
>> The politician says "Maybe." Then the politician looks at the obvious
>> consequences. If we undertake heroic measures to mitigate the potential
>> consequences forwarded by the climate scientists, we will end up living
>> lives that are painful, brutal, and short as a significant portion of the
>> world's GDP is either erradicated or diverted because of the threat.
Scary scenario, wot?
>> If, however, we allow the consequences feared by the climate scientists to
>> take place (assuming they do), the cost to minimize the downsides will be
>> magnitudes less. Heck, there are even positive results that flow from GW.
>> For instance, Canada can get three growing seasons for some crops (wheat)
>> instead of the normal two,
Just like California does now? Cool! <snort>
>It is three seasons only by the name since the winter wheat is harvested in
>october which is in autumn. No way we get three seasons of growth, not even
>two for vegetables. In fact there is little change. We still must plant most
>vegetables in the middle or near the end of May and in September the season
>is over.
We had 6 months of rain this year. Plantings were way late and I lost
4 of my 6 basil plants to cool, cloudy, wet weather. I didn't plant
the rest of the garden because of it. I hate this AGWK!
>>there are fewer deaths related to heat than cold, and so on.
>
>Go tell this to the French in 2003.
Amazing!
>http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
Why don't those fidiots use air conditioners? And how many of those
choked on their brie and cabernet?
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
...and God sat on his image for the previous googleplex of years?
What changed?
Did God exhibit human characteristics and get bored?
Isn't your God perfect?
The great thinker says it has happened before.
---------------
"Tom B" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <snipped>
God does not exist in the minds of those that have limited understanding.
Apparently the earth and heavens just suddenly appeared from the big
bang. But limited understanding does not go back before was around
before the big bang.
"Let there be Light"... BANG!
On Sep 3, 6:09=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipectomy]
> Unless, of course, the same people who promote the notion of AGW are also
> Luddites. For example, has ANY AGW proponent calculated how many trees ne=
ed
> to be planted to act as sufficient carbon sinks, thereby offsetting the
> industrial age? How many, you say? None?
>
> Well, there you are.
Excellent point.
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:52:15 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/2/2011 10:49 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On 02 Sep 2011 23:20:47 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> You're a better man than me, Han ... I have a hard time believing any of
>>>> them. But I do have a pretty well honed sense of BS when I see it, I the
>>>> AGW folks have plenty of that themselves.
>>>
>>> Idon't /know/ Karl. Just seems to me that the combinatrion of far too many
>>> humans farting, and their cows ditto, plus the CO2 could well do something
>>> to the climate over a period of many tens of years that ultimately will
>>> screw things up. I aklso dislike the idea of a warmer ocean putting more
>>> water vapor into the air, and water is also a greenhouse gas. Whether that
>>> feed-forward system can be controlled is really the big question IMHO!
>>
>> Please note that Mother Nature/Gaia does her own things to cool
>> herself off or warm herself up as she sees fit. We're a grain of salt
>> on a blue whale's arse in all of that, but when she sees fit, she'll
>> adjust, just as she always does. The planet is self-regulating and
>> we're just along for the ride.
>>
>
>Could not agree more. If it were not global warming it would be
>something else that people would be worried about.
Whatever sells papers, gains eyeballs, or gathers donations is used by
the profiteers out there. It's a shame that those out there who need
a "cause" to "be for" can't be steered into more meaningful positions
on useful projects.
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/4/2011 11:49 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:I_GdndVl44uON_
> [email protected]:
>
>> That's precisely what I've been saying, but NOT what I've been seeing
>> ... here and elsewhere.
>
> The real problem with these types of theories is that not all variables
> that have an effect are well quantified, or even known, making the theory a
> bit of (sometimes very educated) guessing. With everything it's easier to
> explain after the fact ... <snip>
I thought Dr Spencer's post on his web site this morning was a well
reasoned postulation of _exactly_ what you say above.
Don't have to embrace it, but do take the time to read if you get a
chance and form your own "opinion". :)
<The "commentards" are basically FOS, as usual and should be taken with
the usual NACL, as either ass kissers, or the opposite.>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sep 2, 4:57=A0pm, JimT <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 6:25 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<[email protected]
> > september.org>, [email protected] says...
> >> In article<[email protected]>,
> >> =A0 Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> =A0wrote:
>
> >>> On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <[email protected]>,
> >>>> =A0 =A0Frank<[email protected]> =A0 wrote:
>
> >>>>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
> >>>> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
> >>>> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe =
AGW
> >>>> is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
> >>> Sure global warming is real! =A0hehe. =A0SO WHAT! =A0Exactly how much=
has the
> >>> over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back=
to
> >>> the ice age.
> >> AGW =3D anthropomorphic global warming, Leon. Anthropomorphic is a pre=
tty
> >> big word, I know, but you have the internet at your fingertips.
> > Actually it's "anthropogenic".
>
> <snip>
>
> LOL It's always funny when someone writes something stupid and it isn't
> me. :-)
>
> Anthropomorphic is a big word.
They probably meant ""anthropopathic"".
HB
On Sep 2, 3:42=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
>
> > There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
> > predict. =A0But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is =
a bit
> > too strong to completely discount. =A0So in the absence of definitive p=
roof
> > that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
> > climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
>
> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
> explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
> AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
>
> Most all other political/socioeconomic issues have a fairly obvious
> rationale behind the different thought process ... this one defies my
> ability to put a finger it.
>
> To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be ...
> but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to either a
> solution, or resignation. :)
Note that it=92s only conservatives in the US and to an extremely
smaller extent in some Anglophone countries (UK and Canada) who deny
the existence of global warming. The best explanation I have seen is
that it=92s because of cognitive dissonance. See
http://wmperkins.blogspot.com/2010/06/global-warming-and-cognitive-dissonan=
ce.html
This makes sense to me because for many years I refused to believe the
relation between smoking and different diseases. I looked at the
studies and founding all kinds of flaws in them (I have very good
knowledge of statistical analysis after all). But after 40+ years of
smoking (since I was 11), I now have emphysema (luckily very mild at
this stage), which will eventually kill me, probably in my 80s. And I
had a heart attack at the age of 52 seven months after I quit smoking.
Cognitive dissonance also explains a lot of other kinds of denialism:
evolution for some fundamentalist Christians who believe in the
literal interpretation of the parts of the Bible they happen like, the
whole thing about ozone & acid rain in the 80s, the denial of Stalin=92s
crimes by a large part of the left, etc. etc.
I live in a part of the world (the sub-Arctic) where the effects of
global warming are clear and incontrovertible: winters are much warmer
and precipitation much greater just like the climate models predict. I
use climate and weather data quite often in my work. I do a lot of
life-cycle costing for buildings and I do have to take into account
the effects of warming on future energy use and costs.
I am familiar with Canadian weather data, and average temperatures in
Canada have risen by 1.6 degrees Celsius in the last 63 years (that=92s
2.9 Fahrenheit). And this is in all regions and all seasons. 2010 was
the warmest year on record in Canada, and all years since 1992 have
been above average. If you want more details on actual Canadian
temperature data, go to http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=3DEn=
&n=3D77842065-1.
So if you want to deny that global warming is happening, you have to
find some 10 million square kilometres somewhere on Earth where
average temperatures have declined by at least 1.6 degrees in the last
60 years or so (or 20 million square kilometres with temperature
declining by 0.8 degrees, etc.). Until then, I have no time to waste
in reading what denialists have to say, just like I have no time to
waste reading creationists/intelligent designers (which, incidentally,
Spencer is), flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists or perpetual
motion machine advocates.
And don=92t try to tell me that Antarctic cooling does compensate as the
data is so sparse that different studies have shown both a slight
overall warming and a slight cooling trend depending on how one
organizes the data. Even if the 14 million sq. km. of Antarctica are
cooling on average, the cooling trend is still not enough to
compensate for Canada=92s warming.
One shouldn't deny facts, but there can be disagreement about their
explanation. Given that global warming is happening, the question is
then what hypothesis about its cause we should accept: is it
greenhouse gases or are there other causes? For now it seems that
greenhouse gases are the best explanation for the recent acceleration
in temperatures. Solar radiation? Maybe, but no real evidence yet.
Natural trends? Ok, maybe, but that is just begging the question: what
is causing that natural trend?
The real debate should be about what to do about climate change, if
anything. And yes I am using global warming and climate change
interchangeably: climate is changing as a result of increasing average
temperatures, but the effects are not uniform and it's not only
temperature that change.
On Sep 5, 7:29=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 9/5/2011 10:23 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 11:18 am, "Twayne"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> I suspect, they way you don't know what you're talking about that I've=
been
> >> around a LOT longer than you have. Now, what was your woodworking post
> >> again? Ask mommy if you're confused; she's probably more knowledgeable=
than
> >> you are.
> >> =A0 =A0 If you don't like a post, don't read it. Or is that too hard f=
or your
> >> lazy ass to comprehend?
>
> >> HTH,
>
> >> Twayne`
>
> > Yup... grade # 1 asshole. Buhbyes 'Twayne'. Guys that get their
> > jollies pissing people off have a very short lifespan...at least
> > around here.
>
> I don't recall seeing T-Wayne in this group in 1999, do you?
No, I don't. Then again, why _would_ I remember? *smirk*
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:43:36 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
>
> > Yesterday the weather experts said it would hit 91° here. Only made it
> > to 82° on my weather stations. So much for their models:-). I've seen
> > them lie about the 90° mark almost as much as the amount of snow we get.
>
> Another one who confuses weather with climate is heard from.
Time honored tradition on both sides of the issue. My favorite was about
5 years or so ago when the weather got into a pattern for about 6 weeks
of raining every weekend. It was announced by an environmental group
that this was related to the build up particulates in the air during the
work week and we could expect it to continue. It didn't, but nobody
mentioned that....
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 11:57:04 -0400, "Pin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Citation;
>
>"Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st
>century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers
>predicted future warming."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
What's the connection between the above and below?
>AFAIAC less pollution can not be a bad thing. When I ride my roadbike in
>heavy traffic it is harder to catch my breath. When I ride in an area where
>there are a lot of trees, I feel a lot of difference in the air quality and
>my performance. The global warming deniers are the one who accuse the people
>who are concerned of being extremist or eco-terrorist. Well whatever you
>believe, I say we should make an effort to reduce the damn pollution.
Yes, reduce pollution of all sorts always! Just don't get anal and/or
litigative about it.
>The dust particules I breathed for so many years because my employer was
>more concern about sucking up more money instead of installing decent dust
>collector now have an impact on my lungs.
Yeah, tell me about it. I sucked in asbestos dust when doing brake
jobs back in the '70s. Now I even wear my respirator when mowing the
lawn, cutting construction lumber, blowing, and sweeping. And I use my
dust collector for every table saw cut. Luckily, my lungs aren't
affected, though. I had some sense as a drone back in the day.
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
> "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>> computer generated models
>
> There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
> predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is a bit
> too strong to completely discount. So in the absence of definitive proof
> that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
> climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
Most all other political/socioeconomic issues have a fairly obvious
rationale behind the different thought process ... this one defies my
ability to put a finger it.
To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be ...
but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to either a
solution, or resignation. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 9/2/2011 5:37 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> I appreciate where you're coming from, Han, but it is the relative
> amount of influence of contributing gasses that is being distorted.
> Fact: If *I* pass gas in Sarnia, there WILL be a time when you'll be
> able to measure the effects in NYC. Fact. Indisputable. You'll be
> dealing with atoms/cu.mile, but still...
> Just because we have learned to move the decimal point, endlessly, on
> our test gear, doesn't mean the threat becomes larger just because our
> magnifying glass becomes stronger.
> Of course our emissions are contributing to the overall picture, but
> is Serge's Lada melting Greenland?
> Environmentalists are those who travel through sewers in glass-
> bottomed boats. (Not mine)
I tend to agree with that more than the opposite tack.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sep 2, 5:13=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 5:42 PM, Swingman wrote:
> ...
>
> > What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
> > explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
> > AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
>
> ...
>
> Because the progressives are using GW as pretext to implement cap and
> trade legislation as well as other global initiatives that give up US
> sovereign unilateral control (as many see it).
Many suckers for the well-funded anti-GW lobby, but few well-informed
people, and certainly no honest scientists.
Ex: James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist. Hansen, who
appeared before Congress thirty years ago and laid out the exact
scenario that is unfolding today. On the oil shale thread, read his
comments.
HB
>
> --
On Sep 3, 6:56=A0pm, Higgs Boson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 9:38=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 3:42=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
>
> > > > There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor =
and
> > > > predict. =A0But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases=
is a bit
> > > > too strong to completely discount. =A0So in the absence of definiti=
ve proof
> > > > that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
> > > > climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
>
> > > What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rationa=
l
> > > explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrac=
e
> > > AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
> > [...]
> > Note that it=92s only conservatives in the US and to an extremely
> > smaller extent in some Anglophone countries (UK and Canada) who deny
> > the existence of global warming. The best explanation I have seen is
> > that it=92s because of cognitive dissonance. Seehttp://wmperkins.blogsp=
ot.com/2010/06/global-warming-and-cognitive-di...
>
> [...]
>
> Boys, it isn't that complicated. =A0The forces that want to cast doubt
> on the scientifically proven phenomenon of global warming are
> operating strictly on pragmatic (to them) financial motivation.
> People's health and lives, even those of their own family, don't
> count.
As if there are not also powerful forces making
loads of money off of alleged solutions to
global warming. Everyone
from Al Gore to the industries getting subsidized to
produce energy solutions that don't emit CO2, to
companies supposedly planting trees in some forest
in some third world country.
You want us to believe that replacing
all the world's coal power plants, all the world's
cars, heat generation eqpt, etc doesn't equal
big $$$$?
>
> If the US govt and peoples of the world really try to stop global
> warming before the tipping point,** =A0the Big Corporate Polluters and
> their behind-the-scenes financiers (like the Marshall Institute which
> I repeatedly cite) fear that they may suffer economic damage, and that
> their shareholders may desert them. =A0So they make sophisticated and so
> far successful efforts to confuse the public, even smart people.
Let's look at some other govt efforts where just like
with global warming, govt claims to have science
on their side. In 1978 George McGovern's Senate
committee put out a report saying that the science
was irrefutable. Saturated fat was bad and killing
us all. We were to start replacing regular fat with
transfat, which was safe and good for you.
Within a few years the
govt had dietary guidelines that said stop eating
meat, replace butter with margarine made with
transfat. They created a food pyramid that relied
heavily on carbs. We were supposed to eat bread
and pasta.
On;y thing wrong with that was that it was, well
wrong. Now we realize transfats are one of the
worst things you could eat. A diet high in carbs'
and loaded with transfats has created an
epidemic in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
Now, govt is in turn banning transfats and warning
about carbs. And so it goes.
>
> So our choice is pathetically simple: =A0Do something now, or it will be
> too late.
>
> If we do something, we may save ourselves.
>
> If we keep listening to sophisticated, money-motivated propaganda, we
> may wake up from our dream too late.
Simple question. Since the world is in direct
and immediate danger, are you in favor of
immediately building as many new nuclear
power plants as possible? Yes or no.
>
> A command economy like China, e.g. can act -- though they have ****ed
> up their environment perhaps beyond redemption.
They are acting. They are reaping the rewards of all
the world's business that is coming their way to get
around the stiff environmental regulations in other
countries.
>
> But a democracy (really, now, a plutocracy), has a much harder row to
> hoe, given the overweening power of Big Money to confuse the voters.
> (and the lame executive supposed to be in charge!!!)
>
> *** =A0Some climate scientists warn that we may be past the tipping
> point.
See the above question.
>
> I just don't see it's that complicated. =A0We the people do have the
> power to influence events. =A0Depends whether we can stop kidding
> ourselves.
>
> HB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is that complicated as HeyBub has pointed out. The
cost of going full out on eliminating CO2 emissions is
enormous. It will cost trillions of dollars and trillions of
lives. Lives, you ask? How so? The engine that has
lifted man out of poverty is economic growth. Every
time you reduce economic growth by putting more
burdens on it makes it that
much tougher everywhere around the world. Just
ask the additional people who are starving in Africa
right now because the cost of grain has been tripled
worldwide by the govt diversion of grain for green
energy.
In other worrds, if you're going to go all out on
this because we're all going to die from global
warming you better be right. And given govts
track record, some of us are just a bit skeptical.
On 9/4/2011 7:51 AM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Warmer is far better than cooler. Food doesn't like cold.
>
> For most, yes. For some, not necessarily, as the French dying in
> unairconditioned elderly facilities testify to. As did the Russians dying
> of heat in 2010. Why didn't they have A/C? Like in Holland, they never
> needed it in the past. They do now because things got hotter in the
> summer.
The died because their time was up. Nothing complicated about that, it
could be just as easy for them to have died because of the cold, or
disease or poor health to begin with. Every one is going to die at some
point and there is always going to be a reason.
On Sep 5, 11:18=A0am, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Innews:[email protected],
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> typed:
> <[email protected]> =A0typed:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> It won't be taken as "gospel" by any thnkng persons with
> >> open minds and a genuine interest in things other than
> >> demonstrating their egoes. Whenever anyones says "trust
> >> =A0 =A0 me" it's time to put the microscope on them. If they
> >> had any credibility they wouldn't have to beg for
> >> =A0 =A0 "trust". You're only one voice amongst a din of
> >> others with various positions. In fact, I have to wonder
> >> why you'd post this drivel here at all; there =A0are better newsgroups=
for
> >> you to be heard in unless
> >> you've worn out your welcome there.
>
> >> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
>
> >> HTH,
>
> >> Twayne`
>
> > You putz! =A0I recommended in an earlier post that you
> > stick around for a few years to feel the group out before
> > making any recommendations as to who should go where to
> > post.
>
> You should read the RFCs about OT posts; it would appear you never have.
>
> > I suppose you were just itching to spew your thoughts
> > about some one asking you to trust them.
>
> "Trust me" is one of the first indicators a person has little to no
> verifiable information. It will affect your credibility every time.
>
> > If you don't stop trying to be the he-man protector of
> > this group you are going to find very quickly that your
> > words are going to fall on deaf ears. =A0You can trust me
> > on that.
>
> I can trust you, eh? That's like another "trust me" comment. Thinking peo=
ple
> don't write the kinds of posts you write. =A0And if this bothered you all=
that
> much, your skin is way too thin for usenet; try the forums next time.
>
> I suspect, they way you don't know what you're talking about that I've be=
en
> around a LOT longer than you have. Now, what was your woodworking post
> again? Ask mommy if you're confused; she's probably more knowledgeable th=
an
> you are.
> =A0 =A0If you don't like a post, don't read it. Or is that too hard for y=
our
> lazy ass to comprehend?
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`
Yup... grade # 1 asshole. Buhbyes 'Twayne'. Guys that get their
jollies pissing people off have a very short lifespan...at least
around here.
On Sep 4, 9:04=A0pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Innews:[email protected],
> Swingman <[email protected]> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Next up on the agenda driven "science" of climate change:
>
> > <quote>
>
> > By "Harry"
> > Dear Dr Spencer,
> > As I have read at Dr Pielkes blog, a rebuttal of your
> > paper by Dessler will be published next week in GRL.
>
> > What amazes me is how fast this rebuttal is being peer
> > reviewed and accepted and how unusual this is: a rebuttal
> > should have been published by comment to your paper in
> > Remote Sensing, not by a CAGW friendly journal like GRL.
>
> > The team seems to be under large pressure, possibly by
> > the AR5 community?
> > </quote>
>
> > Politicized "science" as usual ... just wanted you to
> > know, in advance, where the next "Global warming deniers
> > debunked" headline is coming from.
> > Trust me, it will be posted here as GOSPEL "quicker than
> > you can say Jack Robinson".
>
> It won't be taken as "gospel" by any thnkng persons with open minds and a
> genuine interest in things other than demonstrating their egoes. Whenever
> anyones says "trust me" it's time to put the microscope on them.
> =A0 =A0If they had any credibility they wouldn't have to beg for "trust".=
You're
> only one voice amongst a din of others with various positions.
> =A0 =A0In fact, I have to wonder why you'd post this drivel here at all; =
there
> are better newsgroups for you to be heard in unless you've worn out your
> welcome there.
>
> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`
.
<snipped>
>AGW = anthropomorphic global warming, Leon. Anthropomorphic is a pretty
>big word, I know, but you have the internet at your fingertips.
How condescending of you.
>Regarding scientific instruments, we (well, those of us who aren't so
>idiotic as to believe god created the earth) know a hell of a lot about
.the history of the planet, even the universe, just by using the tools
.developed relatively recently.
Hmm, let's see... if we remove the possibility of a Creator, all we have
left to 'splain things is either a TON of physicists theories (SWAG's at
things) or Magic!
I wonder which gives the most hope?
<snipped>
<snipped>
Don't just quote lies, sTwo, go hither onto the Internet and read the
real background on Algore's book/movie farce. It shows that the
researcher he used grabbed (supposedly at random) 90 out of 900 papers
on the subject and most 'just happened to be' alarming. Now research
the other papers and find that there are a whole lot of ifs in there
and a whole lot of deniers, not just alarmists. Feh!
Then there was the "hockey stick" stuff in that whole conversation.
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 2011-09-02 14:47:39 -0400, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> said:
> I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I
> have heard. Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years
> ago when electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it
> is being collected today? You see 200 years ago most data that was
> collected was being done so very sporadically and with inconstant
> results from much more crude mechanical instruments.
Core ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica go back a "bit" over 200
years ago. Like about 1110,000 years.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:49:11 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On 9/2/2011 12:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> > On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leon" wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
>> >>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
>> >>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
>> >>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
>> >>> any type of accurate prediction.
>> >>
>> >> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>> >> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
>> >
>> > Can you document that they have?
>> >
>> > The same qualification you ask for below apply to your response, should you deign to give one.
>> >
>> >
>> >> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
>> >> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
>> >> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
>> >> further back.
>> >>
>> >> If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
>> >
>> > Ditto ...
>>
>> In just a few minutes of looking I found the NOAA paleoclimatology web site.
>> The web site has data going back 150,000 years. That is considerably more
>> than 200 years.
>>
>> They present both their data and some conclusions.
>>
>> Their home page:
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
>
>The big trouble is that the climate models that are predicting gloom and
>doom don't even pretend to model that 150,000 years.
They can't even get yesterday right.
On Sep 2, 12:33=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer and
> > Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the theory
> > behind. =A0Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for publicati=
on of
> > this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the paper at=
the
> > time he decided to publish it:
>
> > "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their=
aim
> > is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous p=
eer
> > review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identi=
fy
> > fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as ma=
ny
> > climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate
> > pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer a=
nd
> > Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most like=
ly
> > problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been publishe=
d.
> > After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pr=
o
> > and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore,=
I
> > would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, =
as a
> > result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [..=
.]"
> >http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>
> I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's been
> going on since the ice age. =A0Ant then there is that season that
> immediately follows winter every year.
>
> What the real confusion here is that global warming enthusiasts/greenies
> have only considered data that does not include enough information to
> make a reasonable assumption one way or the others. =A0Two hundred years
> worth of data is simply not enough to make any type of accurate predictio=
n.
>
> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>
> a. =A0It became a politically popular topic.
> b. =A0Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
> c. =A0Pleasing the greenies by cleaning =A0up the environment has brought
> global warming to the light of day. =A0Global warming was not a thought i=
n
> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
Anybody lives close to Leon? Buy that man as many draught beers as
he's likely to consume in a sitting and send me the bill.
Because that is SPOT on.....
On Sep 4, 6:42=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:98037dd4-6807-4e9d-93c2-
> [email protected]:
>
> > I remember that sometimes the summer in Holland fell on a Tuesday.
>
> Maybe in Alphen, not in Wageningen, but then we were at least an hour eas=
t
> of you ...
>
Yea... we were an hour closer to English weather than you. <G>
"Must be summer, the fog is warming up."
(aside) Funniest remark I heard about 'the local weather' was from a
Newfoundlander who said: "If the wind ever stops blowing here,
everybody is going to fall down."
On Sep 2, 3:03=A0pm, Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> =A0"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Sw
> > Scientists can tell us what the climate was like thousands of years ago=
in
> > parts of the world that today are deserts, for example by the remains o=
f the
> > plants and animals that lived there including human beings who grew cro=
ps
> > where today that would be impossible without irrigation. =A0How do you =
suppose
> > they do that without detailed records made with electronic instruments?=
=A0
>
> Which of course is completely different from what we are talking about,
> what impacts on climate change of any sort and, even more important, how
> man could change it. That is the current point of the debate, not what
> is happening, but whether it is man-made or naturally occurring or some
> combination of both.
>
> I> Gee--ice cores, growth rings in trees, sediments in oceans and lakes,
> > preserved remains of plants and animals including those in human
> > settlements--who could have guessed such things existed and have been u=
sed
> > to study climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, what a
> > revelation.
>
> =A0 Again, largely shows us the what, but not the why. (Although ice core=
s
> may be most helpful in this manner since they show precipitation and
> thus atmospheric conditions.
>
>
>
> --
> People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
> until patients started presenting with sexually
> acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
Why do they call Greenland greenland? Has it always been white?
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 2, 12:33 pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer and
>> > Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the theory
>> > behind. Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for publication of
>> > this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the paper at the
>> > time he decided to publish it:
>>
>> > "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim
>> > is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer
>> > review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify
>> > fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many
>> > climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate
>> > pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and
>> > Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely
>> > problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
>> > After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro
>> > and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I
>> > would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a
>> > result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]"
>> >http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>>
>> I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's been
>> going on since the ice age. Ant then there is that season that
>> immediately follows winter every year.
>>
>> What the real confusion here is that global warming enthusiasts/greenies
>> have only considered data that does not include enough information to
>> make a reasonable assumption one way or the others. Two hundred years
>> worth of data is simply not enough to make any type of accurate prediction.
>>
>> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>>
>> a. It became a politically popular topic.
>> b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
>> c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought
>> global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought in
>> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
>
>Anybody lives close to Leon? Buy that man as many draught beers as
>he's likely to consume in a sitting and send me the bill.
>
>Because that is SPOT on.....
Now, on to more important stuff: http://goo.gl/xAANu
(Be Careful! Dump is like Wimp: an addictive timesucker.)
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/4/2011 11:10 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/4/2011 9:33 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The died because their time was up. Nothing complicated about that,
>>>> it could be just as easy for them to have died because of the cold,
>>>> or disease or poor health to begin with. Every one is going to die
>>>> at some point and there is always going to be a reason.
>>>
>>> Then maybe we should help them on their way? Death panels and so on?
>>> Come on Leon, that couldn't be what you meant, right?
>>>
>>
>> Not sure where you are going with death panels but there is always
>> going to be a reason why some one dies. The heat might have been a
>> contributing factor but absolutely was not the sole cause of the
>> death.
>> It just happened to be hot when these people died. Millions of
>> others
>> survived the heat. Had those that died during the hot weather
>> survived for a few more months something else would have been the
>> contributing factor that broke the camels back. Hot weather is not a
>> new phenomenon, it is a reoccurring cycle.
>
> Not so in this particular prolonged heat spell in France. And yes,
> everyone eventually dies, but there is no need to hasten it. I was in
> Holland at the time, and it was never in memory that hot that long even
> there (~4 hrs due north of Paris).
What did any one do to hasten their deaths? Do you actually think that
"man" has any control over when some one is going to die from mother nature?
Was it as hot this year in Holland and or France, same amount of deaths
from heat? There are always going to be new highs and new lows and we
have nothing to do with it. If we had any chance to knowledge to
control the weather, we would already be doing so. Not going to happen.
In the grand scheme of things we humans have little to no impact on
the climate regardless of what studies may or may not indicate. Mother
nature takes care of herself.
m II wrote:
> Very sad!
>
> You trolls live to disagree to try out your prowess to beat somebody`s
> brains out. (teacher`s inferiority complex)
> When somebody disagrees with your closed minds you announce to the
> world you have the power to ignore him or her. A definite indicator
> of fear of the unknown and more insecurity complex.
Don't give up your day job - psychology is not your strength...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> difficult. The request for a correlation between money spent and
> diseases cured is difficult to address because the final treatment
> studies often aren't financed (almost on principle) by NIH, but by
> industry. And big pharma (no caps please) has been more interested in
> protecting patents and looking for a way to circumvent others' patents
> than in truly innovative treatments. Some of that seems to come about,
> thanks to whosoever's deities.
Actually in the NIH, they do a lot of funding at both ends. They
spend a lot of their money on more or less basic research. The stuff
that the pharma types take and go looking for compounds to address (or
the middle part). They also spend a ton on comparative studies that the
pharms don't want to spend the money on, nor I would say should. But the
correlations (or more important the lack thereof, aren't just on
treatment studies but all of them.
>
> Gene studies have come so far now that some subclasses of subclasses of
> diseases can get treatments that are really rationally designed. Some
> novel cancer treatments are like that.
That is some of the most fascinating stuff I am working on. Especially
in breast cancer, they can pretty much look at your genes and not only
tell if you are more likely to get the disease, but also which
medication you won't and will respond to.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
On 9/4/2011 11:53 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 20:21:50 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/4/2011 8:04 PM, Twayne wrote:
> --snip--
>> You putz! I recommended in an earlier post that you stick around for a
>
> Filters are your friend.
>
> --
> Live Simply. Speak Kindly. Care Deeply. Love Generously.
> -- anon
Damn Larry I am aware of that. Hell if I was as intolerant as you I
would have filtered you long ago. ;~)
On 9/5/2011 12:01 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:53:10 -0700, Larry Jaques
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2011 8:04 PM, Twayne wrote crap:
>
>> Filters are your friend.
>
> Could filter him sure, but reading the messages from self important
> people is occasionally enjoyable. Add to that some of the crap he
> posts, then it gets hilarious pretty quick.
That's right and IIRC he does sometimes have something of value to say.
On 9/4/2011 11:24 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 8:21 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/4/2011 8:04 PM, Twayne wrote:
>
>
>>> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
>
>
>> You putz! I recommended in an earlier post that you stick around for a
>> few years to feel the group out before making any recommendations as to
>> who should go where to post.
>> I suppose you were just itching to spew your thoughts about some one
>> asking you to trust them.
>> If you don't stop trying to be the he-man protector of this group you
>> are going to find very quickly that your words are going to fall on deaf
>> ears. You can trust me on that.
>
> LOL ... the funny thing is that TB bozo binned him on its own as I don't
> see any of his posts unless someone replies to him.
>
> Obviously a sockpuppet by any other name is still a sockpuppet.
>
> go figure ...
>
>
I thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt as IIRC he does talk
wood working on occasion but if I see him pull the net-nanny card again
he'll be a goner.
Pin wrote:
>>
>> And there is a difference between scientists and politicians.
>> Politicians look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate
>> scientists.
>
> You can not be serious, politicians are ruled by lobbies and their
> party. You vote against your party and you may lose a lot.
>
Lobbyists are but one (although sometimes a primary) source of the
information needed to make a rational decision. Lobbyists know more
regarding a given situation than any politician can possibly dream about,
and we often get really bad legislation because of the ABSENCE of lobbyists.
I remember when the Clinton administration imposed a 10% "luxury" tax on
yachts, figuring, I guess, that the rich would simply pay it and move on.
They moved on all right - straight to the Bahamas and other yacht-building
venues. Meanwhile, most of the small yacht builders in the U.S. went out of
business. You see, the small yacht builders didn't have a lobbyist.
>> If, however, we allow the consequences feared by the climate
>> scientists to take place (assuming they do), the cost to minimize
>> the downsides will be magnitudes less. Heck, there are even positive
>> results that flow from GW. For instance, Canada can get three
>> growing seasons for some crops (wheat) instead of the normal two,
>
> It is three seasons only by the name since the winter wheat is
> harvested in october which is in autumn. No way we get three seasons
> of growth, not even two for vegetables. In fact there is little
> change. We still must plant most vegetables in the middle or near the
> end of May and in September the season is over.
Right. But suppose December and January turned out to be quite temperate.
>
>> there are fewer deaths related to heat than cold, and so on.
>
> Go tell this to the French in 2003.
>
A. The French are always outliers (or contrarians).
B. Think Influenza and other respiratory infections.
On 9/2/2011 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:
> I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I
> have heard. Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years ago
> when electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it is
> being collected today? You see 200 years ago most data that was
> collected was being done so very sporadically and with inconstant
> results from much more crude mechanical instruments.
The paper under question deals with the correlation (actually the lack
thereof) of recent satellite temperature monitoring results, with
computer climate model methods, using data from both between 2000 to
2010 ... NOT with tree rings, or any other form of attempts to
interpolate temperature reading when temperature recording devices were
unknown.
The latter is nothing more than a red herring rabbit trail ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sep 2, 12:05=A0pm, Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 2:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <[email protected]>,
> >> Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>
> >> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
> >> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AG=
W
> >> is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>
> > Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
> > over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back t=
o
> > the ice age.
>
> >> Back in the day, the White House had science advisors who helped shape=
d
> >> policy. A certain recent retard in the White House dictated policy
> >> first, and told his "advisors" to conform to it or be fired.
>
> > Now be nice to Carter.
>
> I advise people to read Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear".
> Environmentalists decry it but it shows the mentality of global warning.
>
> I spent enough time in academia or academic environments to know the
> mentality of these people. =A0The fact that they are maybe 90% liberal ma=
y
> be an underestimation. =A0It is also where you find most of your
> climatologists. =A0If someone doesn't think that their science is tainted
> by their political views, they must be in La La land ;)
That book was a disgusting, exploitative piece of ****.
As to your other comment, generalities like "the mentality of these
people" and your belief that climatologists' science is "tainted by
their political views"" illustrate the success of the well-funded
lobby that works assiduously to raise doubts about global warming in
the minds of the very people who will be most affected. This
successful campaign, spearheaded by think-tanks like the infamous
George Marshall Institute, fields a tiny cohort of well-paid whore
scientists whose mission is to muddy the waters on climate change.
I've posted several times before about the Marshall Institute and its
ilk. Their team has run similar obfuscation campaigns for years --
about acid rain, DDT, health effects of tobacco, the ozone hole,
etc. Anything that might interfere with the almighty money-making
imperative of their corporate clients; the public be damned
It's really painful to see bright, well-educated people falling for
this ****, disregarding the concensus of all serious scientists.
Unfortunately those same scientists are good at what they do, but not
particularly adept at publicizing their findings. And the whore media
(note to self: don't overuse that term...but...but...it's so
apposite!...) love to exploit anything they can characterize as
"controversial" that'll help increase their ad prices. Depending on
the medium, they could be on the take as well.
So it's easy for the global warming denier lobby to bad-mouth, e.g. Al
Gore; just sad to see people who should know better jump on the
bandwagon.
Some of us won't be around to say I TOLD YOU SO when the water comes
lapping at the door; the asthma cases skyrocket; infectious diseases
roar around the world; the millions displaced by the rising ocean do
not accept their fate peacefully (Bangladesh, to mention just one);
other millions dying of famine because the ocean currents have been
displace also rise up. It's not going to be pretty; some of it is
already happening; just not making its full impact on the "developed"
world, which is all too eager to hide under the bed; take refuge in
apathy and denial.
Even the corporate monsters and their Marshall Institute shills have
children and grandchildren. But they love money more than they love
their families, who are going to around to bear the brunt.
Thirty years ago, James Hansen and other scientists laid out the whole
scenario. Being played out, act by act.
HB
On 02 Sep 2011 23:20:47 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> You're a better man than me, Han ... I have a hard time believing any of
>> them. But I do have a pretty well honed sense of BS when I see it, I the
>> AGW folks have plenty of that themselves.
>
>Idon't /know/ Karl. Just seems to me that the combinatrion of far too many
>humans farting, and their cows ditto, plus the CO2 could well do something
>to the climate over a period of many tens of years that ultimately will
>screw things up. I aklso dislike the idea of a warmer ocean putting more
>water vapor into the air, and water is also a greenhouse gas. Whether that
>feed-forward system can be controlled is really the big question IMHO!
Why do you assume that farts will "screw something up"? Shouldn't you have to
prove that? Doesn't *science* demand it? You're making the claim...
Feed-forward? Ok, make that two proofs. Hand in your work by Tuesday and I
want to see a working model of the time machine.
Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> Lord: "As am I. Why else do you think I planned this great flood?"
>
> And after it rained for forty days and forty nights and the earth
> was cover in floods, Texas got two-tenths.
>
There is a theory, with much to commend it, that all the water in Texas was
taken up by the Lord and subsequently dumped on Noah.
History may be repeating itself.
Twayne wrote:
> If you don't like a post, don't read it. Or is that too hard for
> your lazy ass to comprehend?
>
POST OF THE WEEK!!!!!! Now netcop - take your own words of advice. Pot,
kettle, black...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/3/2011 12:47 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 10:27 AM, Tom B wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>
>> God does not exist in the minds of those that have limited understanding.
>>
>> Apparently the earth and heavens just suddenly appeared from the big
>> bang. But limited understanding does not go back before was around
>> before the big bang.
>>
>> "Let there be Light"... BANG!
>
> Kinda stupid simple isn't it. ;~) Once you realize that you don't have a
> perceived reasonable explanation to every thing, you can begin to learn
> again.
That is step one on the road to wisdom. The next steps are to realize
there are questions you will never have answers to, and that for most of
the questions, 'not knowing' won't make any difference in your life or
your kid's life, so it is okay to file them away under 'damned if I
know', and get on with more important things.
--
aem sends....
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 08:26:52 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 9/3/2011 7:10 AM, Han wrote:
>> Michael Dobony<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Can you demonstrate any calibration to any measurement past 100 years
>>> ago, a vital component in quantitative scientific research? Can you
>>> cite any experiments that demonstrate a cause and effect relationship
>>> (that rules out all correlation studies) between human activity and
>>> average global temperatures?
>>
>> Some of these things are relatively easy, I believe, such as measuring
>> gases in bubbles in ancient ice, isotopic compositions, and others. The
>> science of measuring heat fluxes onto and off the earth apparently is
>> trickier, and the experts (socalled and real) don't agree on who is doing
>> things right. That leaves lay people to use their best judgment.
>>
>> As someone said elsewhere in this thread in other verbiage, whether or not
>> you're a greenie doesn't matter. Fossil fuels are rather finite, and it my
>> behoove us to work on alternative energy sources.
>>
>
>Current fossil fuels will likely last for hundreds of more years. We
>were suppose to run out decades ago. Now we have found more that we
>have used.
The US can go at least 600 years with fuel from only its borders. The more we
use, the more is found. This hasn't changed for the past 100 years. What has
changed is that what we're finding is more expensive to use, but it's there.
Artificially increasing its price further and bankrupting the country makes
*no* sense. The *only* reason we can have a clean environment (and yes,
Virginia, it is getting cleaner) is that our economy can *afford* it. Once
that changes, Sadie, bar the door!
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:47:25 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/5/2011 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>
>> Hope you never have any thing worth while to say, PLONK!
>
>The wooddorkers of the dworld thank you! :)
It's interesting, isn't it, that the guys who just stood up for him
also plonked him the same day? Makes my head hurt. <thud>
--
One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.
-- Sophocles
On Sep 4, 3:28=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote innews:69qdneJ0g7TILf7TnZ2dnUVZ5ridnZ2=
[email protected]:
>
> > What did any one do to hasten their deaths? =A0Do you actually think
> > that "man" has any control over when some one is going to die from
> > mother nature? Was it as hot this year in Holland and or France, same
> > amount of deaths from heat? =A0There are always going to be new highs
> > and new lows and we have nothing to do with it. =A0If we had any chance
> > to knowledge to control the weather, we would already be doing so.
> > Not going to happen.
> > =A0 In the grand scheme of things we humans have little to no impact on
> > the climate regardless of what studies may or may not indicate.
> > Mother nature takes care of herself.
>
> I'm not keeping track of every year's temps. =A0It's just that the severa=
l
> years we have been vacationing in Holland and thereabouts these last 2
> decades or so, that it has been hotter than usual almost every time. =A0N=
ot
> summers like I also remember when the high was nearer to 68F and often no
> more than 60F. =A0
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
I remember that sometimes the summer in Holland fell on a Tuesday.
On Sep 2, 3:42=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
>
> > "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> =A0wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
> > @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> >> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
> >> computer generated models
>
> > There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
> > predict. =A0But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is =
a bit
> > too strong to completely discount. =A0So in the absence of definitive p=
roof
> > that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
> > climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
>
> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
> explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
> AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
>
> Most all other political/socioeconomic issues have a fairly obvious
> rationale behind the different thought process ... this one defies my
> ability to put a finger it.
>
> To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be ...
> but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to either a
> solution, or resignation. :)
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Note that it=92s only conservatives in the US and to an extremely
smaller extent in some Anglophone countries (UK and Canada) who deny
the existence of global warming. The best explanation I have seen is
that it=92s because of cognitive dissonance. See
http://wmperkins.blogspot.com/2010/06/global-warming-and-cognitive-dissonan=
ce.html
This makes sense to me because for many years I refused to believe the
relation between smoking and different diseases. I looked at the
studies and founding all kinds of flaws in them (I have very good
knowledge of statistical analysis after all). But after 40+ years of
smoking (since I was 11), I now have emphysema (luckily very mild at
this stage), which will eventually kill me, probably in my 80s. And I
had a heart attack at the age of 52 seven months after I quit smoking.
Cognitive dissonance also explains a lot of other kinds of denialism:
evolution for some fundamentalist Christians who believe in the
literal interpretation of the parts of the Bible they happen like, the
whole thing about ozone & acid rain in the 80s, the denial of Stalin=92s
crimes by a large part of the left, etc. etc.
I live in a part of the world (the sub-Arctic) where the effects of
global warming are clear and incontrovertible: winters are much warmer
and precipitation much greater just like the climate models predict. I
use climate and weather data quite often in my work. I do a lot of
life-cycle costing for buildings and I do have to take into account
the effects of warming on future energy use and costs.
I am familiar with Canadian weather data, and average temperatures in
Canada have risen by 1.6 degrees Celsius in the last 63 years (that=92s
2.9 Fahrenheit). And this is in all regions and all seasons. 2010 was
the warmest year on record in Canada, and all years since 1992 have
been above average. If you want more details on actual Canadian
temperature data, go to http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=3DEn=
&n=3D77842065-1.
So if you want to deny that global warming is happening, you have to
find some 10 million square kilometres somewhere on Earth where
average temperatures have declined by at least 1.6 degrees in the last
60 years or so (or 20 million square kilometres with temperature
declining by 0.8 degrees, etc.). Until then, I have no time to waste
in reading what denialists have to say, just like I have no time to
waste reading creationists/intelligent designers (which, incidentally,
Spencer is), flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists or perpetual
motion machine advocates.
And don=92t try to tell me that Antarctic cooling does compensate as the
data is so sparse that different studies have shown both a slight
overall warming and a slight cooling trend depending on how one
organizes the data. Even if the 14 million sq. km. of Antarctica are
cooling on average, the cooling trend is still not enough to
compensate for Canada=92s warming.
One shouldn't deny facts, but one can disagree about their
explanation. Given that global warming is happening, the question is
then what hypothesis about its cause we should accept: is it
greenhouse gases or are there other causes. For now it seems that
greenhouse gases are the best explanation for the recent acceleration
in temperatures. Solar radiation? Maybe, but no real evidence yet.
Natural trends? Ok, maybe, but that is just begging the question: what
is causing that natural trend?
The real debate should be about what to do about climate change, if
anything. And yes I am using global warming and climate change
interchangeably: global warming is leading to climate changes which
include not only temperature but also precipitation and other
phenomena, and it may actually result in lower temperatures in certain
regions.
On Sep 3, 7:43=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 8:05 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> > On 9/2/2011 5:05 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> >> In article<[email protected]>,
> >> "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> wrote:
>
> >>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
> >>> computer generated models
>
> >> And we can't use computer generated models to forecast tax receipts, t=
he
> >> economy, or even the Super Bowl winner. Most systems are too complex t=
o
> >> be modeled accurately, but that never stops anyone from trying and
> >> pretending the models actually mean something.
>
> > Precisely, until the models become accurate they remain assumptions.
>
> Yesterday the weather experts said it would hit 91=B0 here. =A0Only made =
it
> to 82=B0 on my weather stations. =A0So much for their models:-). =A0 I've=
seen
> them lie about the 90=B0 mark almost as much as the amount of snow we get=
.
> =A0 Not sure if it's just the lying, sensationalist, news media or what,
> but I know the f**ker's are lying.
>
> --
> Jack
> Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Convenient Lies!http://jb=
stein.com
Why do they call Greenland Greenland when it is really Whiteland? Did
it use to be warmer there? If so maybe we should be concerned about
global cooling.
dpb wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 7:29 PM, Han wrote:
> ...
>
>> regarding climate change, I can't understand the reasoning, since I
>> believe the arguments are based on misconceptions. But ... time WILL
>> tell.
>
> That's what I think is wrong w/ the "science" of AGW--it's made to fit
> the preconception of it being so and woe to any who (at least at this
> point in time) dares think differently.
>
> --
>
>
They're not even calling it Global Warming anymore. That was last year.
It's "climate change" now. (hedging their bets)
-Bob
Josepi wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> They're not even calling it Global Warming anymore. That was last year.
>> It's "climate change" now. (hedging their bets)
>>
>> -Bob
>
> Yup! Now where would the new glaciers be forming?
>
> They have changed their minds so many times about this subject that
> belief in the AGW scare tactics is waning.
>
> e.g. "Global Warming" has now been relabeled to "Global Climate Shift".
>
> e.g. They told us the oceans would rise about 20 metres or more until
> people informed them that ice takes up less space when melted. Suddenly
> the ocean levels would only rise by one metre.
>
> e.g. We were originally told that ice core samples showed an increase in
> temperature each year when CO2 levels were higher. Later scientists have
> discovered they were reading it backwards and the warmer temperatures
> caused more CO2 to be released from the oceans.
>
> e.g. Global climate temperatures have decreased over the last 20 years
> despite higher CO2 levels.
>
> The list of retractions is endless and no credibility has been
> maintained. I would like to know how they measured world average
> temperatures, accurately, to one tenths of a degree over 100 years ago.
>
> Was Chicken Little right? This is story from decades or more back and it
> still is being promoted today.
>
Just because anthropogenic climate change is a scam doesn't mean we
*aren't* burning up our fossil fuels at an alarming rate. The two
issues have very little to do with each other.
There are so many good reasons to conserve and to develop alternative
energy source (including national security for the Republicans) there's
no need to make up a bullshit reason -- except Al Gore and his buddies
are trying to get rich off of it.
-Bob
On 03 Sep 2011 00:20:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Last question: Have you ever seen a rich global warming skeptic?
>> (Take the hint. ;)
>
> My wife doesn't think that what we are doing is all that bad, and mother
>earth has heated up and cooled down many times before. And I agree. But
>the current speed and degree of heating is extraordinary.
Sir, please remove your hockey stick colored glasses. Mann CHEATED!
>As for the rest of your arguments, I believe that I am scientist enough to
>not fall for follow the leaders, nor for people influenced by contrarian
>money.
Y'know, just because an oil company gives money to people on both
sides of the aisle and both sides of anything which affects them,
doesn't necessarily mean that the money influences the outcome of
their research. In many cases, it only makes that research possible.
If you saw that a researcher was heading down the road toward a paper
which would mean a good outcome for your business, wouldn't you invest
in the research? How can it (money) be good for the alarmists and bad
for the skeptics?
>I just follow logic, ie we are changing the environment in
>unprecedented ways, and yes, mother earth has adapted numerous times, but
>there have also been several extreme bottlenecks in our evolution. I
>believe one of those bottlenecks had our hominid ancestors reduced to
>numbers iof a few thousand or a few 10,000. An extremely small number to
>get a stable humanoid line from. Just a few *(whatever) and we would all
>have been naked mole rats.
So, what in this makes you lean toward mankind making any difference
in the state of the Earth's climate?
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
> Can you document that they have?
Scientists can tell us what the climate was like thousands of years ago in
parts of the world that today are deserts, for example by the remains of the
plants and animals that lived there including human beings who grew crops
where today that would be impossible without irrigation. How do you suppose
they do that without detailed records made with electronic instruments? Is
it *really* so hard to figure out that they have other methods of
determining such things? If scientists haven't studied climate changes
throughout and prior to human history, how come you can go down to the
library and read books about them doing exactly that? If as Leon claims
scientists haven't looked at climate past 200 years, how they they do things
like this?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/
Gee--ice cores, growth rings in trees, sediments in oceans and lakes,
preserved remains of plants and animals including those in human
settlements--who could have guessed such things existed and have been used
to study climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, what a
revelation.
Seriously, when did ignorance become the preferred state for so many people?
On Sep 4, 8:46=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote innews:kb48671b=
[email protected]:
>
> > If you want to build a swimming pool around the entire nation, maybe
> > but do note that the rain does fall on the plain. =A0It's far easier
> > just to not build were Mother Nature consistently wants to be a
> > mother.
>
> Yep. =A0Just like we found out the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't always=
get
> it right, so did the Dutch. =A0There was a huge evolution of the 50-year
> Deltaplan after the floods of '53, and some aspects are still regretted. =
=A0
> But they did learn to live with it. =A0I don't remember the exact number,=
but
> there was a reduction in coastline that is defended against the seas of
> some few thousand miles to a few hundred.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
What are some examples of what they regretted, Han? I suppose some
fisheries went bust, steer me in direction more info...
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> If you want to build a swimming pool around the entire nation, maybe
> but do note that the rain does fall on the plain. It's far easier
> just to not build were Mother Nature consistently wants to be a
> mother.
Yep. Just like we found out the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't always get
it right, so did the Dutch. There was a huge evolution of the 50-year
Deltaplan after the floods of '53, and some aspects are still regretted.
But they did learn to live with it. I don't remember the exact number, but
there was a reduction in coastline that is defended against the seas of
some few thousand miles to a few hundred.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sep 4, 8:46 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:kb48671b
> [email protected]:
>>
>> > If you want to build a swimming pool around the entire nation,
>> > maybe but do note that the rain does fall on the plain. It's far
>> > easier just to not build were Mother Nature consistently wants to
>> > be a mother.
>>
>> Yep. Just like we found out the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't
>> always
> get
>> it right, so did the Dutch. There was a huge evolution of the
>> 50-year Deltaplan after the floods of '53, and some aspects are still
>> regretted.
>
>> But they did learn to live with it. I don't remember the exact
>> number,
> but
>> there was a reduction in coastline that is defended against the seas
>> of some few thousand miles to a few hundred.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Han
>> email address is invalid
>
> What are some examples of what they regretted, Han? I suppose some
> fisheries went bust, steer me in direction more info...
Wetlands deteriorated (Biesbos and others), fisheries & oysters, mussels
were affected. I think in hindsight they wouldn't have made some of the
closed dams, but made them open like the Oosterschelde. Don't recall
all. IIRC the Deltaplan.nl site isn't too good. Maybe this will work
for you:
<http://www.watersnoodmuseum.nl/de-deltawerken/het-deltaplan.html>
Just found that, have not looked at it in detail.
I have always been fascinated by that megawork.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 04 Sep 2011 14:56:00 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> The more dikes and levees that are built, the more severe (though
>> perhaps infrequent) the floods. When you push Mother Nature around,
>> she pushes back.
>
>It can be done. But there needs to be an overflow area to acts as a
>buffer. That is mostly a problem for river systems, rather than ocean
>systems. I used to live next to the Rhine in Holland - use google earth
>and find Wageningen, Netherlands. This shows the "uninhabited" land next
>to the river, used as an overflow for when the Rhine was swollen. Used to
>happen mostly in wintertime and those vast expanses of shallow water could
>freeze and provide tremendously large areas to go skating ...
If you want to build a swimming pool around the entire nation, maybe but do
note that the rain does fall on the plain. It's far easier just to not build
were Mother Nature consistently wants to be a mother.
On 05 Sep 2011 00:01:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> How many die from exposure during the winter vs. summer?
>
>Not many if any. Winters in western Europe are less severe than in New
>York, for instance. Less cold, less snow. For the most time. Of course
>in inland Germany, Switserland, Northern Italy and generally Alps things
>depend on altitude, and I'm sure exposure happens to those not prepared.
Worldwide.
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What the real confusion here is that global warming enthusiasts/greenies
> have only considered data that does not include enough information to make
> a reasonable assumption one way or the others. Two hundred years worth of
> data is simply not enough to make any type of accurate prediction.
Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists studying
climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years? And no,
something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't qualify as
documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the authors of a
scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any further back.
If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
> a. It became a politically popular topic.
> b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
> c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought
> global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought in
> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
Assuming that the only people who would be interested in a clean environment
would be "greenies" (whatever they are) or other left-wing radicals is an
odd way to look at it. From what I've seen Ducks Unlimited isn't a group
dominated by raving leftists, and yet they seem to think protecting the
environment is a worthwhile goal.
On 04 Sep 2011 12:51:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Warmer is far better than cooler. Food doesn't like cold.
>
>For most, yes. For some, not necessarily, as the French dying in
>unairconditioned elderly facilities testify to. As did the Russians dying
>of heat in 2010. Why didn't they have A/C? Like in Holland, they never
>needed it in the past. They do now because things got hotter in the
>summer.
How many die from exposure during the winter vs. summer?
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The more dikes and levees that are built, the more severe (though
> perhaps infrequent) the floods. When you push Mother Nature around,
> she pushes back.
It can be done. But there needs to be an overflow area to acts as a
buffer. That is mostly a problem for river systems, rather than ocean
systems. I used to live next to the Rhine in Holland - use google earth
and find Wageningen, Netherlands. This shows the "uninhabited" land next
to the river, used as an overflow for when the Rhine was swollen. Used to
happen mostly in wintertime and those vast expanses of shallow water could
freeze and provide tremendously large areas to go skating ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> How many die from exposure during the winter vs. summer?
Not many if any. Winters in western Europe are less severe than in New
York, for instance. Less cold, less snow. For the most time. Of course
in inland Germany, Switserland, Northern Italy and generally Alps things
depend on altitude, and I'm sure exposure happens to those not prepared.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:14:47 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 9/3/2011 7:04 AM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han, what is your assessment of 1) the IPCC reports, 2) the Kyoto
>>> Protocol/Treaty, and 3) Cap& Trade effects on climate?
>>
>> Political reports and tax policies that are difficult to enforce
>> globally, to say the least? I think they may all not be more than points
>> for discussion.
>>
>>> Zero net change at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars does not
>>> make any of them good investments in my book. But I'm conservative. ;)
>>
>> Often, getting off your arse and starting to do something costs money for
>> countries. Bureaucracies waste money, but how do we build a consensus?
>>
>>> My assessment: 1) IPCC reports use "may" and "could" far too much.
>>> Even they can't make solid predictions. And each report so far has
>>> reduced the alarmist temperature rises by a degree or two. Besides,
>>> that's not a scientific group, it's a political group.<sigh>
>>
>> see above
>>
>>> 2) Kyoto's net effect would be absolutely zero on the climate.
>>
>> see above
>>
>>> 3) C&T doesn't change behavior one iota, it just adds cost to dirty
>>> business.
>>
>> If one adds a cost to do business as usual, maybe the free market can
>> find a better way?
>>
>>> How can any of this help, if that were possible?
>>
>> If people do not want to change, the consequences could (yes, that word)
>> dire (alarmist alarm!!).
>>
>> This Irene, like Floyd a few years back has wreaked havoc here in Bergen
>> and Passaic counties. This time also almost everywhere along the NE
>> seaboard and in a large part of New England. It's a week since and
>> flooding is still severe here for those affected directly (I live a mile
>> or so away). Good thing I have another way to drive to EWR this morning
>> ...
>>
>> Whether or not the storms are getting more severe these last few years
>> may still be open for debate, but hereabouts we have now had at least 3
>> 100-year floods in the last 3 years. Pity those who chose (that's the
>> past tense, right?) to live in areas subject to flooding.
>>
>> Ridgewood is a rather rich suburb, and they chose to build in the flood
>> plain of a small river/creek:<http://tinyurl.com/3pzgcfq> or
>> <http://fairlawn.patch.com/articles/irene-strikes-bergen-county#photo-
>> 7588002>
>> Many schools will delay opening because they need to dry out and get
>> decontaminated. Yes, stupid to build where they did, and stupid to not
>> take precautions ...
>
>It is pretty much a known fact that the more the population expands and
>decreases run off areas the more there will be 100 year floods.
>
The more dikes and levees that are built, the more severe (though perhaps
infrequent) the floods. When you push Mother Nature around, she pushes back.
On Sep 4, 5:01=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote innews:0a18675j=
[email protected]:
>
> > How many die from exposure during the winter vs. summer?
>
> Not many if any. =A0Winters in western Europe are less severe than in New
> York, for instance. =A0Less cold, less snow.
For now, Wait until global warming causes the Gulf Stream to be
diverted.
=A0For the most time. =A0Of course
> in inland Germany, Switserland, Northern Italy and generally Alps things
> depend on altitude, and I'm sure exposure happens to those not prepared.
Or too poor to afford warm clothing and shelter -- as happens in large
US cities, but NOT in Europe, where human beings still come (for the
most part) before
corporate profiteers and their political lackeys. Of course such a
policy is rank Socialism, to be condemned by the Mad Dogs and THEIR
lobbyists.
HB
>
> --
> Han
> email address is invalid
On 9/4/2011 9:33 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The died because their time was up. Nothing complicated about that, it
>> could be just as easy for them to have died because of the cold, or
>> disease or poor health to begin with. Every one is going to die at some
>> point and there is always going to be a reason.
>
> Then maybe we should help them on their way? Death panels and so on? Come
> on Leon, that couldn't be what you meant, right?
>
Not sure where you are going with death panels but there is always going
to be a reason why some one dies. The heat might have been a
contributing factor but absolutely was not the sole cause of the death.
It just happened to be hot when these people died. Millions of others
survived the heat. Had those that died during the hot weather survived
for a few more months something else would have been the contributing
factor that broke the camels back. Hot weather is not a new phenomenon,
it is a reoccurring cycle.
On 9/5/2011 12:19 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:47:25 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2011 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hope you never have any thing worth while to say, PLONK!
>>
>> The wooddorkers of the dworld thank you! :)
>
> It's interesting, isn't it, that the guys who just stood up for him
> also plonked him the same day? Makes my head hurt.<thud>
I'm on a roll.....You are next! LOL
On 9/5/2011 10:23 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 5, 11:18 am, "Twayne"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect, they way you don't know what you're talking about that I've been
>> around a LOT longer than you have. Now, what was your woodworking post
>> again? Ask mommy if you're confused; she's probably more knowledgeable than
>> you are.
>> If you don't like a post, don't read it. Or is that too hard for your
>> lazy ass to comprehend?
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Twayne`
>
> Yup... grade # 1 asshole. Buhbyes 'Twayne'. Guys that get their
> jollies pissing people off have a very short lifespan...at least
> around here.
I don't recall seeing T-Wayne in this group in 1999, do you?
On 9/4/2011 10:32 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:lJ6dnQ7kO8x_C_
> [email protected]:
>
>> On 9/4/2011 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>> "woodstuff"<[email protected]> wrote in news:j3ump6$dif$1@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
>>>
>>> Seems to be Spencer's website. Believe him or not, I don't.
>>
>> To scientific endeavor that is irrelevant, or should be.
>>
>> So far there have been no peer reviewed papers offered in rebuttal to
>> prove the one under question is flawed, only opinion ... as above.
>>
>> :)
>
> Karl, why would the editor in charge of the review of this paper resign
> if there wasn't something wrong with the paper, in hindsight?
Let's see who hires him next ... that will answer that question.
The
> journal is a niche journal, far from Science, Nature, or the New England
> Journal of Medicine. Editors sometimes make mistakes. That is almost
> common (certainly for Science and Nature and their ilk). Editors don't
> resign.
One just did ... and there's more to this than meets the eye.
> When I asked my astrophysicist daughter about the paper she looked around
> and said the techniques and conclusions were poorly done in the opinion
> of many bona fide scientists. I didn't get names or peer-reviewed papers
> from her, but that wasn't necessary for me (sorry, so sorry).
OPINION does NOT count in "science" ... what _is_ poor science is
"scientist" offering same.
Han ... you erroneously stated above, without checking, that, and I
quote: "it seems to be Spencer's website"
That is a totally false assumption on your part, that you obviously did
NOT don't even bother to check before you made it.
I constantly find the arguments, on both sides, rife with this type of
"opinionated", kneejerk, jumping to conclusions.
Sorry, my friend ... If you want me to take you seriously on this issue,
you will have to do better than that.
Here is Dr. Spencer's website:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
If you can find a connection between that and:
"All text and images on this site are © John Herron /
GlobalWarmingHoax.com - All Rights Reserved, unless otherwise noted."
... I will stand corrected.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 9/4/2011 11:16 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/4/2011 10:32 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:lJ6dnQ7kO8x_C_
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 9/4/2011 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> "woodstuff"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:j3ump6$dif$1@dont- email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to be Spencer's website. Believe him or not, I don't.
>>>>
>>>> To scientific endeavor that is irrelevant, or should be.
>>>>
>>>> So far there have been no peer reviewed papers offered in rebuttal
>>>> to prove the one under question is flawed, only opinion ... as
>>>> above.
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>
>>> Karl, why would the editor in charge of the review of this paper
>>> resign if there wasn't something wrong with the paper, in hindsight?
>>
>> Let's see who hires him next ... that will answer that question.
>>
>> The
>>> journal is a niche journal, far from Science, Nature, or the New
>>> England Journal of Medicine. Editors sometimes make mistakes. That
>>> is almost common (certainly for Science and Nature and their ilk).
>>> Editors don't resign.
>>
>> One just did ... and there's more to this than meets the eye.
>>
>>> When I asked my astrophysicist daughter about the paper she looked
>>> around and said the techniques and conclusions were poorly done in
>>> the opinion of many bona fide scientists. I didn't get names or
>>> peer-reviewed papers from her, but that wasn't necessary for me
>>> (sorry, so sorry).
>>
>>
>> OPINION does NOT count in "science" ... what _is_ poor science is
>> "scientist" offering same.
>>
>> Han ... you erroneously stated above, without checking, that, and I
>> quote: "it seems to be Spencer's website"
>>
>> That is a totally false assumption on your part, that you obviously
>> did NOT don't even bother to check before you made it.
>>
>> I constantly find the arguments, on both sides, rife with this type of
>> "opinionated", kneejerk, jumping to conclusions.
>>
>> Sorry, my friend ... If you want me to take you seriously on this
>> issue, you will have to do better than that.
>>
>> Here is Dr. Spencer's website:
>>
>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/
>>
>> If you can find a connection between that and:
>>
>> "All text and images on this site are © John Herron /
>> GlobalWarmingHoax.com - All Rights Reserved, unless otherwise noted."
>>
>> ... I will stand corrected.
>
> I was looking for that, but didn't find it. I saw what now looks like a
> quote of stuff by Spencer.
>
> As far as scientists being totally without opinions, foggedaboudid. They
> all have opinions. Things can get pretty hot when scientists with
> conflicting views get at it at meetings. DAMHIKT!!!
>
> What scientists /should/ do is test the opinions with the facts, and
> adjust the opinions accordingly.
>
That's precisely what I've been saying, but NOT what I've been seeing
... here and elsewhere.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually that was Mister "Read My Lips No New Taxes". The "luxury tax
> on yachts" was passed and signed into law and went into force in 1991.
> Clinton took office in 1993.
That was part of the Pres. B's rather misguided efforts to be
"bipartisan" at the insistence of Democrats during the budget mugging..
er.. Summit. Where the Dems got their tax increases, sorta forgot to
fulfill their promised cuts and then proceeded to beat B soundly about
the face and head with RMLNNT pledge. This explains a lot of the GOP's
reluctance to be bipartisan.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
In article <[email protected]
september.org>, [email protected] says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
> > On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
> > >
> > > Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
> > > science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
> > > is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
> >
> > Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
> > over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back to
> > the ice age.
>
> AGW = anthropomorphic global warming, Leon. Anthropomorphic is a pretty
> big word, I know, but you have the internet at your fingertips.
Actually it's "anthropogenic".
> Regarding scientific instruments, we (well, those of us who aren't so
> idiotic as to believe god created the earth) know a hell of a lot about
> the history of the planet, even the universe, just by using the tools
> developed relatively recently.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Back in the day, the White House had science advisors who helped shaped
> > > policy. A certain recent retard in the White House dictated policy
> > > first, and told his "advisors" to conform to it or be fired.
> >
> > Now be nice to Carter.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 9/2/2011 12:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
> > On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Leon" wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
> >>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
> >>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
> >>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
> >>> any type of accurate prediction.
> >>
> >> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
> >> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
> >
> > Can you document that they have?
> >
> > The same qualification you ask for below apply to your response, should you deign to give one.
> >
> >
> >> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
> >> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
> >> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
> >> further back.
> >>
> >> If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
> >
> > Ditto ...
>
> In just a few minutes of looking I found the NOAA paleoclimatology web site.
> The web site has data going back 150,000 years. That is considerably more
> than 200 years.
>
> They present both their data and some conclusions.
>
> Their home page:
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
The big trouble is that the climate models that are predicting gloom and
doom don't even pretend to model that 150,000 years.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 9/2/2011 7:51 PM, Han wrote:
> > dpb<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> Because the progressives are using GW as pretext to implement cap and
> >> trade legislation as well as other global initiatives that give up US
> >> sovereign unilateral control (as many see it).
> >
> > I have looked at cap and trade as a way to let the market place put a price
> > on "pollution"....
>
> Excepting, of course, it isn't a market force that's trying to place it
> there, it's a legislative body.
The big problem now is that China isn't interested in "capping" and
China isn't interested in "trading" and China is the largest single
emitter of greenhouse gases despite having signed Kyoto.
When the US was the biggest emitter and everybody could benefit by
making the US pay penalties for that situation "cap and trade" seemed
wonderful to the UN. Now that a country that isn't wealthy and doesn't
really give a crap what the UN likes is the biggest emitter it's a
different ball game.
If you want to end greenhouse emissions you're going to have to force
China to cooperate. World's largest army, more men fit for military
service than the entire population of the US, and they have nukes. You
do the math.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Smitty Two wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> > Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
> >
> > Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
> > science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe
> > AGW is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
> >
>
> First, I don't CARE what scientists "believe." I'm only interested in what
> they can prove.
>
>
> And there is a difference between scientists and politicians. Politicians
> look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate scientists.
>
> The climate scientists say "The earth is warming and mankind is (partly?
> mostly?) to blame. They then suggest some obvious consequences, i.e., ocean
> levels rising.
>
> The politician says "Maybe." Then the politician looks at the obvious
> consequences. If we undertake heroic measures to mitigate the potential
> consequences forwarded by the climate scientists, we will end up living
> lives that are painful, brutal, and short as a significant portion of the
> world's GDP is either erradicated or diverted because of the threat.
>
> If, however, we allow the consequences feared by the climate scientists to
> take place (assuming they do), the cost to minimize the downsides will be
> magnitudes less. Heck, there are even positive results that flow from GW.
> For instance, Canada can get three growing seasons for some crops (wheat)
> instead of the normal two, there are fewer deaths related to heat than cold,
> and so on.
And if sea levels rise then there's a building boom for levees,
seawalls, pumping stations, and new construction somewhat inland.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Pin wrote:
> >>
> >> And there is a difference between scientists and politicians.
> >> Politicians look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate
> >> scientists.
> >
> > You can not be serious, politicians are ruled by lobbies and their
> > party. You vote against your party and you may lose a lot.
> >
>
> Lobbyists are but one (although sometimes a primary) source of the
> information needed to make a rational decision. Lobbyists know more
> regarding a given situation than any politician can possibly dream about,
> and we often get really bad legislation because of the ABSENCE of lobbyists.
>
> I remember when the Clinton administration imposed a 10% "luxury" tax on
> yachts, figuring, I guess, that the rich would simply pay it and move on.
> They moved on all right - straight to the Bahamas and other yacht-building
> venues. Meanwhile, most of the small yacht builders in the U.S. went out of
> business. You see, the small yacht builders didn't have a lobbyist.
Actually that was Mister "Read My Lips No New Taxes". The "luxury tax
on yachts" was passed and signed into law and went into force in 1991.
Clinton took office in 1993.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Pin wrote:
> >
> > AFAIAC less pollution can not be a bad thing. When I ride my roadbike
> > in heavy traffic it is harder to catch my breath. When I ride in an
> > area where there are a lot of trees, I feel a lot of difference in
> > the air quality and my performance. The global warming deniers are
> > the one who accuse the people who are concerned of being extremist or
> > eco-terrorist. Well whatever you believe, I say we should make an
> > effort to reduce the damn pollution.
>
> Everybody's for less pollution. There's less pollution, of all kinds, than
> there was in, say, 1976. There's a LOT less pollution today than there was
> in 1850 London.
>
> >
> > The dust particules I breathed for so many years because my employer
> > was more concern about sucking up more money instead of installing
> > decent dust collector now have an impact on my lungs.
> >
>
> Evidently you were more concerned with sucking up money from your employer
> than you were concerned about your health. Where's the difference?
You've never _needed_ a job, have you? When the alternative is to go
hungry and sleep on a park bench one is pretty much forced to compromise
on such matters. If the economy was booming and anybody who wanted one
could get a job that paid all his bills it would be one thing, but the
US economy hasn't been booming like that in decades.
On 9/3/2011 7:10 AM, Han wrote:
> Michael Dobony<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Can you demonstrate any calibration to any measurement past 100 years
>> ago, a vital component in quantitative scientific research? Can you
>> cite any experiments that demonstrate a cause and effect relationship
>> (that rules out all correlation studies) between human activity and
>> average global temperatures?
>
> Some of these things are relatively easy, I believe, such as measuring
> gases in bubbles in ancient ice, isotopic compositions, and others. The
> science of measuring heat fluxes onto and off the earth apparently is
> trickier, and the experts (socalled and real) don't agree on who is doing
> things right. That leaves lay people to use their best judgment.
>
> As someone said elsewhere in this thread in other verbiage, whether or not
> you're a greenie doesn't matter. Fossil fuels are rather finite, and it my
> behoove us to work on alternative energy sources.
>
Current fossil fuels will likely last for hundreds of more years. We
were suppose to run out decades ago. Now we have found more that we
have used.
On 9/2/2011 6:53 PM, Dan Coby wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 12:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
> In just a few minutes of looking I found the NOAA paleoclimatology web
> site.
> The web site has data going back 150,000 years. That is considerably more
> than 200 years.
That data is not going back 150,000 years, no data was being recorded
then.
As mentioned, it is only a conclusion, not fact.
On 9/2/2011 12:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Leon" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
>>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
>>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
>>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
>>> any type of accurate prediction.
>>
>> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
>
> Can you document that they have?
>
> The same qualification you ask for below apply to your response, should you deign to give one.
>
>
>> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
>> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
>> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
>> further back.
>>
>> If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
>
> Ditto ...
In just a few minutes of looking I found the NOAA paleoclimatology web site.
The web site has data going back 150,000 years. That is considerably more
than 200 years.
They present both their data and some conclusions.
Their home page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
Dan
On 9/2/2011 6:53 PM, Dan Coby wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 12:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Leon" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
>>>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
>>>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
>>>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
>>>> any type of accurate prediction.
>>>
>>> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>>> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
>>
>> Can you document that they have?
>>
>> The same qualification you ask for below apply to your response,
>> should you deign to give one.
>>
>>
>>> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
>>> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
>>> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
>>> further back.
>>>
>>> If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you
>>> believe it?
>>
>> Ditto ...
>
> In just a few minutes of looking I found the NOAA paleoclimatology web
> site.
> The web site has data going back 150,000 years. That is considerably more
> than 200 years.
>
> They present both their data and some conclusions.
>
> Their home page:
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
Problem is the topic of the paper under discussion covers the period
2000 - 2010.
The rest is irrelevant to the discussion as introduced.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
George Watson goes by hundreds of names and still lives here as a "valued"
poster under a few other names. You fucking troll wannabies just don't get
it, do you?
----------------------
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I don't recall seeing T-Wayne in this group in 1999, do you?
On 9/4/2011 8:21 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 8:04 PM, Twayne wrote:
>> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
> You putz! I recommended in an earlier post that you stick around for a
> few years to feel the group out before making any recommendations as to
> who should go where to post.
> I suppose you were just itching to spew your thoughts about some one
> asking you to trust them.
> If you don't stop trying to be the he-man protector of this group you
> are going to find very quickly that your words are going to fall on deaf
> ears. You can trust me on that.
LOL ... the funny thing is that TB bozo binned him on its own as I don't
see any of his posts unless someone replies to him.
Obviously a sockpuppet by any other name is still a sockpuppet.
go figure ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 9/3/2011 8:05 PM, Steve wrote:
> On 2011-09-02 14:47:39 -0400, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> said:
>
>> I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I
>> have heard. Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years
>> ago when electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it
>> is being collected today? You see 200 years ago most data that was
>> collected was being done so very sporadically and with inconstant
>> results from much more crude mechanical instruments.
>
> Core ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica go back a "bit" over 200
> years ago. Like about 1110,000 years.
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
>
Sure they do and all that information derived from those samples is up
for interpretation since no one lived during that period to verify the
findings. And then that sample is simply a sample of what happened at
thta spot, not the whole world.
Next up on the agenda driven "science" of climate change:
<quote>
By "Harry"
Dear Dr Spencer,
As I have read at Dr Pielkes blog, a rebuttal of your paper by Dessler
will be published next week in GRL.
What amazes me is how fast this rebuttal is being peer reviewed and
accepted and how unusual this is: a rebuttal should have been published
by comment to your paper in Remote Sensing, not by a CAGW friendly
journal like GRL.
The team seems to be under large pressure, possibly by the AR5 community?
</quote>
Politicized "science" as usual ... just wanted you to know, in advance,
where the next "Global warming deniers debunked" headline is coming from.
Trust me, it will be posted here as GOSPEL "quicker than you can say
Jack Robinson".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > "If" the earth is becoming warmer because of man, it is because the
> > atmosphere has been cleaned up enough that more sun light is reaching
> > the earth. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> >
>
> That cleaning up would work both ways, I think, incoming and radiating out.
> But I do winder whether the 9/11 clearing of the upper atmosphere where
> jets fly had any effect. Someone ought to have been able to measure it,
> because it ws mostly clear all over the US and the disappearance of
> contrails quite remarkable.
There was something about that a few months ago, naturally I can't
find it now. I vaguely recall it had something to do with moisture in
the air instead of temps.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:540e041f-2269-4612-803d-6a48a72c699b@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 2, 12:33 pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer
>> > and Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the
>> > theory behind. Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for
>> > publicati
> on of
>> > this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the
>> > paper at
> the
>> > time he decided to publish it:
>>
>> > "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science.
>> > Their
> aim
>> > is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a
>> > rigorous p
> eer
>> > review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to
>> > identi
> fy
>> > fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately,
>> > as ma
> ny
>> > climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change
>> > debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper
>> > by Spencer a
> nd
>> > Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most
>> > like
> ly
>> > problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been
>> > publishe
> d.
>> > After having become aware of the situation, and studying the
>> > various pr
> o
>> > and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper.
>> > Therefore,
> I
>> > would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision
>> > and,
> as a
>> > result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
>> > [..
> .]"
>> >http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>>
>> I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's been
>> going on since the ice age. Ant then there is that season that
>> immediately follows winter every year.
>>
>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
>> any type of accurate predictio
> n.
>>
>> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>>
>> a. It became a politically popular topic.
>> b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
>> c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought
>> global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought
>> i
> n
>> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
>
> Anybody lives close to Leon? Buy that man as many draught beers as
> he's likely to consume in a sitting and send me the bill.
>
> Because that is SPOT on.....
Sorry, nonsense. With all due respect for both Leon and Rob, all
available data indicates that manmade greenhouse gases contribute to the
warming of the earth, globally and averaged, over sites and time (i.e. 3-
dimensional averaging and drawing a line that is an average of several
years, following that with time. The fatc that global warming has
happened since the last iceage is correct and irrelevant. The
superimposition of the manmade components has added an order or two of
magnitude to the rate of increasing temperature. We can fight and
discuss all we want, the proof of the hotsoup will be there in another
35, 50 or 100 years. But then my teeth won't hurt me no more, and it
will be a problem for the Chinese or the Arabs (no discriminatory intent,
just a semi-educated guess at who will be in power by then, the US having
selfdestructed much, much faster than the Romans).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>
> Let's be fair and report on Roy Spencer's response:
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/breaking-editor-in-chief-of-remot
> e-sensing-resigns-over-spencer-braswell-paper/
>
> Now, do you know anymore about the actual truth of the matter than you
> did before writing the above headline?
Sorry Karl, and with all respect, I believe the people who oppose what Roy
Spencer said. People will see later who is right, but I don't think I'll
have any feelings by that time anymore ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The paper under question deals with the correlation (actually the lack
> thereof) of recent satellite temperature monitoring results, with
> computer climate model methods, using data from both between 2000 to
> 2010 ... NOT with tree rings, or any other form of attempts to
> interpolate temperature reading when temperature recording devices were
> unknown.
My understanding of the controversy is that many climatologists doubt the
accuracy, or the proper calibration of the methods of Spencer & Brasswell
(sp?). That combined with the stated positions of these scientists on the
theory of global warming, and their sources of funding make me disbelieve
their results. Like it has been stated before - follow the money (or
cherchez la femme in different circumstances).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
@unlimited.newshosting.com:
> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
> computer generated models
There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is a bit
too strong to completely discount. So in the absence of definitive proof
that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> You're a better man than me, Han ... I have a hard time believing any of
> them. But I do have a pretty well honed sense of BS when I see it, I the
> AGW folks have plenty of that themselves.
Idon't /know/ Karl. Just seems to me that the combinatrion of far too many
humans farting, and their cows ditto, plus the CO2 could well do something
to the climate over a period of many tens of years that ultimately will
screw things up. I aklso dislike the idea of a warmer ocean putting more
water vapor into the air, and water is also a greenhouse gas. Whether that
feed-forward system can be controlled is really the big question IMHO!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/2/2011 5:37 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> I appreciate where you're coming from, Han, but it is the relative
>> amount of influence of contributing gasses that is being distorted.
>> Fact: If *I* pass gas in Sarnia, there WILL be a time when you'll be
>> able to measure the effects in NYC. Fact. Indisputable. You'll be
>> dealing with atoms/cu.mile, but still...
>> Just because we have learned to move the decimal point, endlessly, on
>> our test gear, doesn't mean the threat becomes larger just because our
>> magnifying glass becomes stronger.
>> Of course our emissions are contributing to the overall picture, but
>> is Serge's Lada melting Greenland?
>> Environmentalists are those who travel through sewers in glass-
>> bottomed boats. (Not mine)
>
> I tend to agree with that more than the opposite tack.
Rob and Karl:
I can see where you come from. But with all due respect, the cumulative
effects of Serge's Lada and the cows in Holland farting plus everything
elsemight just be bad, real bad. And 1 Mount Pinotubo's burb can't put
enough SO2 into the stratosphere to counteract all that. Not that I am
longing for a Krakatao ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Which of course includes the federal money. THAT is not be any means
> clean money since who gets the money is decided by who appeals best to
> the notions of the people doling it out. And that is further muddied
> by the politics involved in getting the money allocated in the first
> place. To take an example from an area I am more comfortable with,
> studies have shown absolutely no correlation between the NIH money
> being spent and (1) the number of people with a disease (2) the amount
> of money being spent on treatment (3) the quality adjusted life years
> lost or gained or any other measurement. It is largely based on who is
> yelling at the COngress the loudest when the money is allocated (I
> have always wondered about the correlation between the average Q-value
> of the disease's spokespersons and funding, but nobody wants to give a
> grant to study it--grin).
Far from me to dispute some of that. I too have seen that some good
ideas get funded, others not, and vice versa. However, in the final
analysis most funded research is on average better* than the proposals
not funded. The problem is that outofthebox proposals get sent back
with the request of "show at least some data" and that is often
difficult. The request for a correlation between money spent and
diseases cured is difficult to address because the final treatment
studies often aren't financed (almost on principle) by NIH, but by
industry. And big pharma (no caps please) has been more interested in
protecting patents and looking for a way to circumvent others' patents
than in truly innovative treatments. Some of that seems to come about,
thanks to whosoever's deities.
Gene studies have come so far now that some subclasses of subclasses of
diseases can get treatments that are really rationally designed. Some
novel cancer treatments are like that. If you have melanoma that has a
certain mutation (which here means that a certain growth-promoting
protein is continuously "on", rather than subject to in/off regulation by
the usual signal transducing pathways) there is now a drug that can block
the mutated protein, in effect just about curing the melanoma. There is
something somewhat similar for certain "Philadelphia-chromosome
positive" leukemias - the drug Gleevec. IMNSHO Dr.Brian Druker might
(soon?) get the Nobel price for conceiving the idea and developing this
medication. Unfortunately, the cancer sometimes mutates and Gleevec
doesn't do the job anymore, and other similar inhibitors need to be alos
used. Altogether these and other studies have slowly (too slowly) paved
the way for better treatments. They aren't cheap however.
____
* better (unfortunately) often means 2 different things. Either really
better research, or better presented research. Of course the combo is
the very best ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Last question: Have you ever seen a rich global warming skeptic?
> (Take the hint. ;)
My wife doesn't think that what we are doing is all that bad, and mother
earth has heated up and cooled down many times before. And I agree. But
the current speed and degree of heating is extraordinary.
As for the rest of your arguments, I believe that I am scientist enough to
not fall for follow the leaders, nor for people influenced by contrarian
money. I just follow logic, ie we are changing the environment in
unprecedented ways, and yes, mother earth has adapted numerous times, but
there have also been several extreme bottlenecks in our evolution. I
believe one of those bottlenecks had our hominid ancestors reduced to
numbers iof a few thousand or a few 10,000. An extremely small number to
get a stable humanoid line from. Just a few *(whatever) and we would all
have been naked mole rats.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
> explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
> AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
Not sure of the answer to your question, as I am not sure that the
correlation is anything other than perceived or coincidental. Perhaps
the progressives want to better our lot more hands-on, the laggards (<big
grin>) like to hope for the best.
> Most all other political/socioeconomic issues have a fairly obvious
> rationale behind the different thought process ... this one defies my
> ability to put a finger it.
Wrong, Karl, so sorry. Yes there are different premises, and different
philosophies, but like conservatives as you call them (used to be a far
dirtier concept back in Holland in the 60s than liberal is here now) I
would like liberty and opportunity for all, and no free ride for lazy
people. But help for truly needy is "good" in my opinion.
> To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be
> ...but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to
> either asolution, or resignation. :)
Yes time will tell, and I do believe that tolerance and respect for
opposing views is important. But while I respect your opposing view
regarding climate change, I can't understand the reasoning, since I
believe the arguments are based on misconceptions. But ... time WILL
tell.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
>> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>>
>> > and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>> > computer generated models
>>
>> There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor
>> and predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases
>> is a bit too strong to completely discount.
> Serious question.. you are not really arguing that correlation is
> causation are you?
You are right, correlation doesn't prove causation. Some things are
really difficult to prove totally and unequivocally. So if all the
correlations seem to support the hypothesis, as do theoretical
reasonings, as well as partial experiments of what has happened and what
might happen, than perhaps correlation is the best we can do.
> So in the absence of definitive proof
>> that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
>> climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
> Why? There is a definite cost associated with that, it isn't like
> this is free.
I think that in many people's views, the cost of not doing something
about the greeenhouse effects is enormously greater (although later) then
not doing something about it. For instance, if warming would increase
the volume of the oceans, and then reduce land are on the planet, the
surface of the oceans would increase to some extent, and hence the
ability to evaporate more water, water vapor is a greeenhouse gas and
will cause further warming, etc, etc. The extent of land area inundated
by the oceans in this way may not be all that great, but a very large
percentage of peoples and businesses are on/in that land, in the US, and
worldwide.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Have them start on COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS and cut the total output of
> heat/gases from the human race in half in a day. (Coal no, nukes yes.)
Coal and oil , and yes, gas-fired powerplants are "bad" in the eyes of the
CO2 haters. Nukes are good. But especially coal. And the reasons are
obvious. The closer to pure C (like good coal is) the greater the relative
amount of CO2 produced when burned. Add some hydrogens to the C, and you
get oil, then butane, propane, ethane and methane, in order. For CH4
(methane) much of the energy comes from the conversion of the H's to H2O
and far less from the C to CO2 conversion. Ergo, methane is better than C
by a long shot. WHich is why I don't understand that there isn't more
research into coal to liquid or gas conversion, preferably (I think) using
photovoltaically produced hydrogen. But I'm not a chemist in that are at
all, so I don't know the costs. Only hat Nazi Germany and later South
Africa did get somewhere (at very great cost).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> difficult. The request for a correlation between money spent and
>> diseases cured is difficult to address because the final treatment
>> studies often aren't financed (almost on principle) by NIH, but by
>> industry. And big pharma (no caps please) has been more interested
>> in protecting patents and looking for a way to circumvent others'
>> patents than in truly innovative treatments. Some of that seems to
>> come about, thanks to whosoever's deities.
> Actually in the NIH, they do a lot of funding at both ends. They
> spend a lot of their money on more or less basic research. The stuff
> that the pharma types take and go looking for compounds to address (or
> the middle part). They also spend a ton on comparative studies that
> the pharms don't want to spend the money on, nor I would say should.
> But the correlations (or more important the lack thereof, aren't just
> on treatment studies but all of them.
>
>
>>
>> Gene studies have come so far now that some subclasses of subclasses
>> of diseases can get treatments that are really rationally designed.
>> Some novel cancer treatments are like that.
> That is some of the most fascinating stuff I am working on.
> Especially
> in breast cancer, they can pretty much look at your genes and not only
> tell if you are more likely to get the disease, but also which
> medication you won't and will respond to.
Yes that latter part is TRULY fascinating, and not only (by far!) in
breast CA, but also in all kinds of leukemias and melanomas.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Because the progressives are using GW as pretext to implement cap and
> trade legislation as well as other global initiatives that give up US
> sovereign unilateral control (as many see it).
I have looked at cap and trade as a way to let the market place put a price
on "pollution" and of course if that is treated as an affair of the local
municipality it won't work. Therefore especially in Europe it is treated
as a more global thing (Some European countries are not much bigger than
some of our bigger metropolitan areas - I'm originally from Holland
<grin>).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 9/2/2011 7:29 PM, Han wrote:
> ...
>
>> regarding climate change, I can't understand the reasoning, since I
>> believe the arguments are based on misconceptions. But ... time WILL
>> tell.
>
> That's what I think is wrong w/ the "science" of AGW--it's made to fit
> the preconception of it being so and woe to any who (at least at this
> point in time) dares think differently.
No, that is almost totally wrong. Observations were that temps are
increasing, and CO2 and other greenhouse gases were an easy to identify
culprit. If you see smoke you are going to look for fire, not for peacable
scouts trying to light a fire by using wet wood.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Please note that Mother Nature/Gaia does her own things to cool
> herself off or warm herself up as she sees fit. We're a grain of salt
> on a blue whale's arse in all of that, but when she sees fit, she'll
> adjust, just as she always does. The planet is self-regulating and
> we're just along for the ride.
She will endure, while we are along for the ride, and after. It's just
when she says "enough" and kicks us off that concerns me. Not looking
forward to the time the ride becomes a bull ride ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in news:j3s7ja
[email protected]:
> If the free market wanted cap and tax, we'd have had it 100
> plus years ago.
Tax policies have always involved stimulating what we want and punishing
what we don't. I see no difference here. Cap and trade, oil depletion
allowances, I won't pretend I understand the intricacies, but I get the
idea.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/2/2011 7:29 PM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a
>>> rational explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing
>>> to embrace AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar
>>> opposite.
>>
>> Not sure of the answer to your question, as I am not sure that the
>> correlation is anything other than perceived or coincidental.
>
> LOL ... like the correlations used to bolster AGW arguments?
>
>:)
Yep. But there is a relatively logical theory behind AGW. In the case
of conservatives vs progressives, I don't know of the "theory", as do
you, I think, because otherwise you wouldn't ask!
Have to get back to wood working now the temps are lower and the family
about to go home ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:20:12 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Haters of the US can't bring themselves to call us "Americans".
>> Nothing new.
>
> One doesn't have to be a "hater" to note that there's a lot of North
> and South America that isn't the US.
>
> Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., all call themselves
> by their country name. Only US citizens have enough chutzpah to
> appropriate the name of two continents for themselves.
And citizens of those countries call United States citizens... Americans.
What's this chutzpah shit Larry? All this noise about US citizens being
inappropriate in calling themselves Americans and it seems to me that more
non-US citizens call US citizens Americans, than do the US citizens
themselves.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/6/2011 2:18 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:20:12 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Haters of the US can't bring themselves to call us "Americans".
>>> Nothing new.
>>
>> One doesn't have to be a "hater" to note that there's a lot of North
>> and South America that isn't the US.
>>
>> Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., all call themselves
>> by their country name. Only US citizens have enough chutzpah to
>> appropriate the name of two continents for themselves.
>
> And citizens of those countries call United States citizens... Americans.
> What's this chutzpah shit Larry? All this noise about US citizens being
> inappropriate in calling themselves Americans and it seems to me that more
> non-US citizens call US citizens Americans, than do the US citizens
> themselves.
Probably pissed because he can't call himself an American or his
countrymen havent the balls.
in 1508513 20110906 175801 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:20:12 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Haters of the US can't bring themselves to call us "Americans". Nothing
>> new.
>
>One doesn't have to be a "hater" to note that there's a lot of North and
>South America that isn't the US.
>
>Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., all call themselves by
>their country name. Only US citizens have enough chutzpah to appropriate
>the name of two continents for themselves.
>
>OTOH, it's really difficult to come up with a reasonable name using "US"
>as the root - "I'm a USer" definitely gives the wrong impression :-).
US-Americans?
>
> However, "America" sometimes refers to other countries in North America,
> depending on the context and where you are.
In the studies of archaeology and the studies of people groups, Americans or
people of the Americas can mean anyone from the Arctic to Antarctica that is
in North, Central, or South America.
Steve
On 9/7/2011 5:50 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:38:54 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
>> Probably pissed because he can't call himself an American or his
>> countrymen havent the balls.
>
> I'm pleased to see such reasoned responses :-).
>
> Or should I say that some responders have more balls than brains :-).
>
That could be right. :~)
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:20:12 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> Haters of the US can't bring themselves to call us "Americans". Nothing
> new.
One doesn't have to be a "hater" to note that there's a lot of North and
South America that isn't the US.
Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., all call themselves by
their country name. Only US citizens have enough chutzpah to appropriate
the name of two continents for themselves.
OTOH, it's really difficult to come up with a reasonable name using "US"
as the root - "I'm a USer" definitely gives the wrong impression :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
One doesn't have to be a "hater" to note that there's a lot of North and
South America that isn't the US.
Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., all call themselves by
their country name. Only US citizens have enough chutzpah to appropriate
the name of two continents for themselves.
OTOH, it's really difficult to come up with a reasonable name using "US"
as the root - "I'm a USer" definitely gives the wrong impression :-).
================
Canuckistanis sometimes refer to manufactured products as
"Made by Us, eh?"
--
Eric
[email protected] wrote:
> Haters of the US can't bring themselves to call us "Americans".
> Nothing new.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., all call themselves by
> their country name. Only US citizens have enough chutzpah to appropriate
> the name of two continents for themselves.
Most English dictionaries list "US citizen" as at least one of the
definitions of "American" Often the FIRST definition. This is common
usage for far more than just US citizens. If you uttered the word
"American" anywhere on earth, you most likely would have to explain
yourself if you wanted it interpreted differently.
You're are bloviating about nothing.
--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America ======> God Damn Amerika!
http://jbstein.com
"Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Most English dictionaries list "US citizen" as at least one of the
definitions of "American" Often the FIRST definition. This is common
usage for far more than just US citizens. If you uttered the word
"American" anywhere on earth, you most likely would have to explain
yourself if you wanted it interpreted differently.
You're are bloviating about nothing.
============
"American" typically refers to citizens of the USA. I believe the Mexicans
have more to say about that but that is waning.
However, "America" sometimes refers to other countries in North America,
depending on the context and where you are.
The "USanian" name was only a cute way of referring to our citizens of the
USA. The term is used frequently online by people that harbor no ill feeling
towards us similar to "Canuckistani" for Canadian people I know or "Aussie"
Now if I used the term....
--
Eric
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:38:54 -0500, Leon wrote:
> Probably pissed because he can't call himself an American or his
> countrymen havent the balls.
I'm pleased to see such reasoned responses :-).
Or should I say that some responders have more balls than brains :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 9/7/2011 6:50 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Or should I say that some responders have more balls than brains:-).
> -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Does that mean they should be gassed, as G.B. Shaw recommended?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:26:55 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
> Does that mean they should be gassed, as G.B. Shaw recommended?
You seem to have an irrational aversion to Shaw. Certainly he was a
little warped and at times it's difficult to determine whether he's being
serious or satirical (perhaps you think Swift's "modest proposal" was
serious?). But I've seen nothing that refutes his statement that I quote
in my signature.
The problem is that our intelligence is often subordinated to our animal
instincts. Perhaps in another few million years we'll get past that - if
we survive that long.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 9/8/2011 12:15 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:26:55 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Does that mean they should be gassed, as G.B. Shaw recommended?
> You seem to have an irrational aversion to Shaw.
I think his wanting to kill/gas people that HE feels are not up to his
standards is adequate basis for my "aversion".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WBRjU9P5eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eir00rOho
>Certainly he was a little warped and at times
I think wanting to gas people that don't meet government standards is
more than a little warped. Socialist the world over disagree, and
killed over 100 million just in the last 100 years.
>it's difficult to determine whether he's being
> serious or satirical
I'm not a follower, but what I've seen he seems serious as a heart attack.
> But I've seen nothing that refutes his statement that I quote
> in my signature.
And I see little in his statement that you quote that is true and it
underlines his pompous, sick attitude that he is somehow better than
everyone else, and that people need culled like animals, and he, and is
sick socialist buddies are just the ones to do it. 416,000 Americans
gave their lives to stop those sick socialist bastards in WWII. And, by
Americans I mean young, US citizens.
> The problem is that our intelligence is oftenoften subordinated to
> our animal instincts.
Would seem that since our intelligence is sometimes not "subordinated to
our animal instincts" negates his dumb ass statement to begin with.
Examples of our intelligence envelop your entire existence.
I find both Shaw, and his wacko beliefs repulsive. If one supported his
beliefs, Shaw would be gassed, albeit "painlessly"
Perhaps in another few million years we'll get past that - if
> we survive that long.
Not likely if we follow ideologies like Shaws.
--
Jack
Socialism, a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery
- Winston Churchill
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 09:43:32 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack Stein wrote:
>> On 9/5/2011 8:36 PM, Eric wrote:
>>> All that and you missed Mike's "environmnet".
>>>
>>> Better improve your netkopping. USanians have no grammar skills and
>>> it's OK.
>>
>> USanian grammar skills are good enough.
>>
>
>What in the heck is this "USanians" stuff?
Haters of the US can't bring themselves to call us "Americans". Nothing new.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han, what is your assessment of 1) the IPCC reports, 2) the Kyoto
> Protocol/Treaty, and 3) Cap & Trade effects on climate?
Political reports and tax policies that are difficult to enforce
globally, to say the least? I think they may all not be more than points
for discussion.
> Zero net change at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars does not
> make any of them good investments in my book. But I'm conservative. ;)
Often, getting off your arse and starting to do something costs money for
countries. Bureaucracies waste money, but how do we build a consensus?
> My assessment: 1) IPCC reports use "may" and "could" far too much.
> Even they can't make solid predictions. And each report so far has
> reduced the alarmist temperature rises by a degree or two. Besides,
> that's not a scientific group, it's a political group. <sigh>
see above
> 2) Kyoto's net effect would be absolutely zero on the climate.
see above
> 3) C&T doesn't change behavior one iota, it just adds cost to dirty
> business.
If one adds a cost to do business as usual, maybe the free market can
find a better way?
> How can any of this help, if that were possible?
If people do not want to change, the consequences could (yes, that word)
dire (alarmist alarm!!).
This Irene, like Floyd a few years back has wreaked havoc here in Bergen
and Passaic counties. This time also almost everywhere along the NE
seaboard and in a large part of New England. It's a week since and
flooding is still severe here for those affected directly (I live a mile
or so away). Good thing I have another way to drive to EWR this morning
...
Whether or not the storms are getting more severe these last few years
may still be open for debate, but hereabouts we have now had at least 3
100-year floods in the last 3 years. Pity those who chose (that's the
past tense, right?) to live in areas subject to flooding.
Ridgewood is a rather rich suburb, and they chose to build in the flood
plain of a small river/creek: <http://tinyurl.com/3pzgcfq> or
<http://fairlawn.patch.com/articles/irene-strikes-bergen-county#photo-
7588002>
Many schools will delay opening because they need to dry out and get
decontaminated. Yes, stupid to build where they did, and stupid to not
take precautions ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Michael Dobony <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Can you demonstrate any calibration to any measurement past 100 years
> ago, a vital component in quantitative scientific research? Can you
> cite any experiments that demonstrate a cause and effect relationship
> (that rules out all correlation studies) between human activity and
> average global temperatures?
Some of these things are relatively easy, I believe, such as measuring
gases in bubbles in ancient ice, isotopic compositions, and others. The
science of measuring heat fluxes onto and off the earth apparently is
trickier, and the experts (socalled and real) don't agree on who is doing
things right. That leaves lay people to use their best judgment.
As someone said elsewhere in this thread in other verbiage, whether or not
you're a greenie doesn't matter. Fossil fuels are rather finite, and it my
behoove us to work on alternative energy sources.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "If" the earth is becoming warmer because of man, it is because the
> atmosphere has been cleaned up enough that more sun light is reaching
> the earth. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
That cleaning up would work both ways, I think, incoming and radiating out.
But I do winder whether the 9/11 clearing of the upper atmosphere where
jets fly had any effect. Someone ought to have been able to measure it,
because it ws mostly clear all over the US and the disappearance of
contrails quite remarkable.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The politician says "Maybe." Then the politician looks at the obvious
> consequences. If we undertake heroic measures to mitigate the
> potential consequences forwarded by the climate scientists, we will
> end up living lives that are painful, brutal, and short as a
> significant portion of the world's GDP is either erradicated or
> diverted because of the threat.
Just picking this paragraph for comment. You are going to believe
politicians and disregard scientists' opinions? As a scientist, I cannot
respect such a view. Politicians have especially recently proven to be
more interested in (re-)election than in what is for the good of the
country. Now I admit that some scientists might emphasize their opinions
rather than competing ones, but that isn't the majority nor do I believe
they ultimately will have the respect of their peers.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in news:j3tdfp
[email protected]:
> In this case, "we" means the elected ruling class.
Of course. And now we have brainwashed the hoi polloi into voting idiots
into office, we're really up the creek. I'm gonna get a bigger paddle.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/2/2011 8:29 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> Wrong, Karl, so sorry. Yes there are different premises, and
>> different philosophies, but like conservatives as you call them (used
>> to be a far dirtier concept back in Holland in the 60s than liberal
>> is here now)
>
> Liberal was usurped by the left wing socialist bastards, and now means
> someone that hates individual freedom, believes the individual is
> stupid and needs controlled and directed by a strong, centralized
> government (socialist), or, as G.W Shaw, and Hitler thought, needs
> gassed.
>
>> I would like liberty and opportunity for all, and no free ride for
>> lazy people. But help for truly needy is "good" in my opinion.
>
> So you are a conservative. I suspected you had some socially
> redeeming value:-)
>
>>> To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be
>>> ...but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to
>>> either asolution, or resignation. :)
>>
>> Yes time will tell, and I do believe that tolerance and respect for
>> opposing views is important.
>
> Why have tolerance for liars and crooks? Gore, inventor of all things
> stupid, recently bloviated about the need to "win the conversation".
> Science is not a conversation, it is fact based, with verifiable
> proof. So far, the only proof I see is that Gore and his left wing
> government funded buddies are a bunch of money grubbing liars with no
> socially redeeming value...
>
>> But while I respect your opposing view
>> regarding climate change, I can't understand the reasoning, since I
>> believe the arguments are based on misconceptions.
>
> You can call them misconceptions, but I call them blatant lies. One
> lie is enough to make me suspicious, but a bunch of lies by both the
> "scientists" and idiots like AlGore is all I need to dismiss the lot
> of them.
I was trying to be polite, since some are seeing ad hominem attacks
almost everywhere ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> It is pretty much a known fact that the more the population expands and
> decreases run off areas the more there will be 100 year floods.
>
True
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:37:11 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>No, but I'm not going to give them equal weight. The scientist has
>>only his data before him. He has NO knowledge of the secondary effects
>>of his studies, even if his studies are correct. The politician has
>>input from ALL the stakeholders and, as a result, has considerably
>>more insight into the consequences.
>
> That's as about a screwed up opinion as I've ever seen. Scientists of
> this day and age compare their studies and correlate the effects. Part
> of a scientist's mandate is that personal opinion is *not* part of the
> equation. A politician on the other hand, has his own agenda, what he
> feels would be the best scenario for himself and what he feels is the
> best scenario for his country. A politician's opinions are heavily
> weighed down by personal opinion. These facts are evident and
> diametrically opposed to your comment above.
Exactly, with a major correction. Thereare pitifully few politicians
today concerned with the whole USA*. Most are only concerend with a)
reelection, and b) getting their position solidified by getting like-
minded idiots elected.
I presume your phrase "best scenario for his country" means the USA.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Why do you assume that farts will "screw something up"? Shouldn't you
> have to prove that? Doesn't *science* demand it? You're making the
> claim...
>
> Feed-forward? Ok, make that two proofs. Hand in your work by Tuesday
> and I want to see a working model of the time machine.
Sorry, too lazy to explain everything. Farts contain methane, a
greenhouse gas much, much more potent than CO2. Some think that
increases of methane in the atmosphere (difficult to quantitate such low
amounts) are even more of a problem than CO2.
You all know of feedback, where an increase of product diminishes the
reaction, so the reaction is self-limiting to an extent. Screeching
sound systems are also called subject to feedback, but it is really feed-
forward, where the produced sounds get further amplified by the too close
microphone or other acoustic (or electrical) effects.
In a nuclear reactor or atomic bomb, the same happens and is called a
chain reaction. Same for the process of bloodclotting - a chain reaction
set off by small changes having a big effect. In a nuclear reactor and
in normal people's blood, the chain reaction is limited by controls,
which can sometimes go awry. The global warming effects we see now are
also similar. So far the controls seem to be working somewhat, at least
the result today is not yet devastating. Whether or not we can keep
things in limits by doing nothing or something is what we seem to
disagree about.
Just like the most recent housing debacle was very limited in Texas
because that state had more stringent regulations than others for
mortgage qualification. So regulations (and the very rare commodity of
common sense) can control otherwise out of control systems. To me that
means that some measures should be taken to control CO2 and other
greenhouse gases. But there seem to be lobyists who are set against
that,because of provincial self interests. As in the housing debacle,
selfinterest (of banks mainly) and lack of common sense (home buyers),
the global warming thing could explode in our faces. And yes, the laws
of unintended consequences can put a bad damper on our enthusiasm ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Warmer is far better than cooler. Food doesn't like cold.
For most, yes. For some, not necessarily, as the French dying in
unairconditioned elderly facilities testify to. As did the Russians dying
of heat in 2010. Why didn't they have A/C? Like in Holland, they never
needed it in the past. They do now because things got hotter in the
summer.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:3f398571-
[email protected]:
> In 1978 George McGovern's Senate
> committee put out a report saying that the science
> was irrefutable. Saturated fat was bad and killing
> us all. We were to start replacing regular fat with
> transfat, which was safe and good for you.
At the time there were certainly dissenting voices. Maybe the margarine
industry was behind it <grin>. However, it is undoubtedly true that
saturated fats are bad for you. I'd rather look at the transfat as a
result of the laws of unintended consequences.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:3f398571-
[email protected]:
> Simple question. Since the world is in direct
> and immediate danger, are you in favor of
> immediately building as many new nuclear
> power plants as possible? Yes or no.
Yes. With sufficient regulation and better safety features than the 1950's
plants.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:3f398571-
[email protected]:
> They are acting. They are reaping the rewards of all
> the world's business that is coming their way to get
> around the stiff environmental regulations in other
> countries.
And they will be proven wrong on many levels. The huge dams already caused
earthquakes. They'll silt up, etc, etc.
I think the only thing that saves China is their population control.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The died because their time was up. Nothing complicated about that, it
> could be just as easy for them to have died because of the cold, or
> disease or poor health to begin with. Every one is going to die at some
> point and there is always going to be a reason.
Then maybe we should help them on their way? Death panels and so on? Come
on Leon, that couldn't be what you meant, right?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sep 3, 6:09 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipectomy]
>
>> Unless, of course, the same people who promote the notion of AGW are
>> also Luddites. For example, has ANY AGW proponent calculated how many
>> trees need
>> to be planted to act as sufficient carbon sinks, thereby offsetting
>> the industrial age? How many, you say? None?
>>
>> Well, there you are.
>
> Excellent point.
Actually, the calculations have been done. There were some surprises.
IIRC, the tropics were not as good a sink as had been assumed.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"woodstuff" <[email protected]> wrote in news:j3ump6$dif$1@dont-
email.me:
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> snip
>
> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Seems to be Spencer's website. Believe him or not, I don't.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:lJ6dnQ7kO8x_C_
[email protected]:
> On 9/4/2011 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
>> "woodstuff"<[email protected]> wrote in news:j3ump6$dif$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
>>
>> Seems to be Spencer's website. Believe him or not, I don't.
>
> To scientific endeavor that is irrelevant, or should be.
>
> So far there have been no peer reviewed papers offered in rebuttal to
> prove the one under question is flawed, only opinion ... as above.
>
>:)
Karl, why would the editor in charge of the review of this paper resign
if there wasn't something wrong with the paper, in hindsight? The
journal is a niche journal, far from Science, Nature, or the New England
Journal of Medicine. Editors sometimes make mistakes. That is almost
common (certainly for Science and Nature and their ilk). Editors don't
resign.
When I asked my astrophysicist daughter about the paper she looked around
and said the techniques and conclusions were poorly done in the opinion
of many bona fide scientists. I didn't get names or peer-reviewed papers
from her, but that wasn't necessary for me (sorry, so sorry).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/4/2011 9:33 AM, Han wrote:
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The died because their time was up. Nothing complicated about that,
>>> it could be just as easy for them to have died because of the cold,
>>> or disease or poor health to begin with. Every one is going to die
>>> at some point and there is always going to be a reason.
>>
>> Then maybe we should help them on their way? Death panels and so on?
>> Come on Leon, that couldn't be what you meant, right?
>>
>
> Not sure where you are going with death panels but there is always
> going to be a reason why some one dies. The heat might have been a
> contributing factor but absolutely was not the sole cause of the
> death.
> It just happened to be hot when these people died. Millions of
> others
> survived the heat. Had those that died during the hot weather
> survived for a few more months something else would have been the
> contributing factor that broke the camels back. Hot weather is not a
> new phenomenon, it is a reoccurring cycle.
Not so in this particular prolonged heat spell in France. And yes,
everyone eventually dies, but there is no need to hasten it. I was in
Holland at the time, and it was never in memory that hot that long even
there (~4 hrs due north of Paris).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/4/2011 10:32 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:lJ6dnQ7kO8x_C_
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> On 9/4/2011 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> "woodstuff"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:j3ump6$dif$1@dont- email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be Spencer's website. Believe him or not, I don't.
>>>
>>> To scientific endeavor that is irrelevant, or should be.
>>>
>>> So far there have been no peer reviewed papers offered in rebuttal
>>> to prove the one under question is flawed, only opinion ... as
>>> above.
>>>
>>> :)
>>
>> Karl, why would the editor in charge of the review of this paper
>> resign if there wasn't something wrong with the paper, in hindsight?
>
> Let's see who hires him next ... that will answer that question.
>
> The
>> journal is a niche journal, far from Science, Nature, or the New
>> England Journal of Medicine. Editors sometimes make mistakes. That
>> is almost common (certainly for Science and Nature and their ilk).
>> Editors don't resign.
>
> One just did ... and there's more to this than meets the eye.
>
>> When I asked my astrophysicist daughter about the paper she looked
>> around and said the techniques and conclusions were poorly done in
>> the opinion of many bona fide scientists. I didn't get names or
>> peer-reviewed papers from her, but that wasn't necessary for me
>> (sorry, so sorry).
>
>
> OPINION does NOT count in "science" ... what _is_ poor science is
> "scientist" offering same.
>
> Han ... you erroneously stated above, without checking, that, and I
> quote: "it seems to be Spencer's website"
>
> That is a totally false assumption on your part, that you obviously
> did NOT don't even bother to check before you made it.
>
> I constantly find the arguments, on both sides, rife with this type of
> "opinionated", kneejerk, jumping to conclusions.
>
> Sorry, my friend ... If you want me to take you seriously on this
> issue, you will have to do better than that.
>
> Here is Dr. Spencer's website:
>
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/
>
> If you can find a connection between that and:
>
> "All text and images on this site are © John Herron /
> GlobalWarmingHoax.com - All Rights Reserved, unless otherwise noted."
>
> ... I will stand corrected.
I was looking for that, but didn't find it. I saw what now looks like a
quote of stuff by Spencer.
As far as scientists being totally without opinions, foggedaboudid. They
all have opinions. Things can get pretty hot when scientists with
conflicting views get at it at meetings. DAMHIKT!!!
What scientists /should/ do is test the opinions with the facts, and
adjust the opinions accordingly.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:I_GdndVl44uON_
[email protected]:
> That's precisely what I've been saying, but NOT what I've been seeing
> ... here and elsewhere.
The real problem with these types of theories is that not all variables
that have an effect are well quantified, or even known, making the theory a
bit of (sometimes very educated) guessing. With everything it's easier to
explain after the fact ... But I'd still like more well-designed nuclear
plants than un"clean" coal.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Next up on the agenda driven "science" of climate change:
>
> <quote>
>
> By "Harry"
> Dear Dr Spencer,
> As I have read at Dr Pielkes blog, a rebuttal of your paper by Dessler
> will be published next week in GRL.
>
> What amazes me is how fast this rebuttal is being peer reviewed and
> accepted and how unusual this is: a rebuttal should have been
> published by comment to your paper in Remote Sensing, not by a CAGW
> friendly journal like GRL.
>
> The team seems to be under large pressure, possibly by the AR5
> community?
>
> </quote>
>
> Politicized "science" as usual ... just wanted you to know, in
> advance, where the next "Global warming deniers debunked" headline is
> coming from.
>
> Trust me, it will be posted here as GOSPEL "quicker than you can say
> Jack Robinson".
Karl, I am not familiar with these acronyms, nor with the reference to
Jack Robinson. I guess GRL is a journal, perhaps Geophysical Research
Letters. If so, this quote may be relevant: "Due to changing Editorial
policies, GRL no longer considers comments and replies for publication."
The "Impact factors" of GRL & Remote Sensing are in the same ballpark,
with RS higher, but declining as of lately
<http://www.aboutgis.com/gis-and-remote-sensing-journal-list-with-impact-
factors/>
Impact factors supposedly rate the relative quality and importance of
journals, but this is often skewed by the tendency of authors to quote
their own work more than that of others ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> What did any one do to hasten their deaths? Do you actually think
> that "man" has any control over when some one is going to die from
> mother nature? Was it as hot this year in Holland and or France, same
> amount of deaths from heat? There are always going to be new highs
> and new lows and we have nothing to do with it. If we had any chance
> to knowledge to control the weather, we would already be doing so.
> Not going to happen.
> In the grand scheme of things we humans have little to no impact on
> the climate regardless of what studies may or may not indicate.
> Mother nature takes care of herself.
I'm not keeping track of every year's temps. It's just that the several
years we have been vacationing in Holland and thereabouts these last 2
decades or so, that it has been hotter than usual almost every time. Not
summers like I also remember when the high was nearer to 68F and often no
more than 60F.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:98037dd4-6807-4e9d-93c2-
[email protected]:
> I remember that sometimes the summer in Holland fell on a Tuesday.
Maybe in Alphen, not in Wageningen, but then we were at least an hour east
of you ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 04 Sep 2011 12:48:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Why do you assume that farts will "screw something up"? Shouldn't
>>> you have to prove that? Doesn't *science* demand it? You're making
>>> the claim...
>>>
>>> Feed-forward? Ok, make that two proofs. Hand in your work by
>>> Tuesday and I want to see a working model of the time machine.
>>
>>Sorry, too lazy to explain everything. Farts contain methane, a
>>greenhouse gas much, much more potent than CO2. Some think that
>>increases of methane in the atmosphere (difficult to quantitate such
>>low amounts) are even more of a problem than CO2.
>
> But does that fart "screw everything up"? Prove it. You still have a
> couple of days.
>
>>You all know of feedback, where an increase of product diminishes the
>>reaction, so the reaction is self-limiting to an extent. Screeching
>>sound systems are also called subject to feedback, but it is really
>>feed- forward, where the produced sounds get further amplified by the
>>too close microphone or other acoustic (or electrical) effects.
>
> No, it is still "feedback". Feed-forward implies feeding a signal
> ahead of itself, in this case it would be forward in time. Obviously,
> that's not possible. (The term you're looking for is "positive
> feedback").
>
>>In a nuclear reactor or atomic bomb, the same happens and is called a
>>chain reaction. Same for the process of bloodclotting - a chain
>>reaction set off by small changes having a big effect.
>
> That's still not "feed-forward". (The term you're looking for is
> "avalanche".)
>
>>In a nuclear reactor and
>>in normal people's blood, the chain reaction is limited by controls,
>>which can sometimes go awry. The global warming effects we see now
>>are also similar. So far the controls seem to be working somewhat, at
>>least the result today is not yet devastating. Whether or not we can
>>keep things in limits by doing nothing or something is what we seem to
>>disagree about.
>
> No, you still haven't proven that it "screws everything up".
>
>>Just like the most recent housing debacle was very limited in Texas
>>because that state had more stringent regulations than others for
>>mortgage qualification. So regulations (and the very rare commodity
>>of common sense) can control otherwise out of control systems. To me
>>that means that some measures should be taken to control CO2 and other
>>greenhouse gases. But there seem to be lobyists who are set against
>>that,because of provincial self interests. As in the housing debacle,
>>selfinterest (of banks mainly) and lack of common sense (home buyers),
>>the global warming thing could explode in our faces. And yes, the
>>laws of unintended consequences can put a bad damper on our enthusiasm
>>...
>
> More words. You still haven't proven that it "screws everything up".
>
OK, positive feedback. Or chain reaction. If that really occurs (I
added the if) then the ultimate result depends on the timeframe and rate
of positive feedback. In the case of a nuclear chainreaction as in a
U235 bomb, the rate is rather high, and the result almost
indistinguishable from instantaneous. In climate we deal with rate of
distribution of the culprit gases (and a host of other factors). No one
yet knows whether there is a real tipping point beyond which things
become irreversible, or whether it is slow enough to be controllable.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sep 4, 6:42 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:98037dd4-6807-4e9d-93c2-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>> > I remember that sometimes the summer in Holland fell on a Tuesday.
>>
>> Maybe in Alphen, not in Wageningen, but then we were at least an hour
>> eas
> t
>> of you ...
>>
>
> Yea... we were an hour closer to English weather than you. <G>
> "Must be summer, the fog is warming up."
>
> (aside) Funniest remark I heard about 'the local weather' was from a
> Newfoundlander who said: "If the wind ever stops blowing here,
> everybody is going to fall down."
Reminds me of our bicycle camping trip through the Netherlands. We were
somewhere in Friesland and pedaling mightily against the rather heavy
breeze on our rented 10-speed bikes, when a couple of not so young ladies
in black (of course) passed us on their single speed what is now called
"omafietsen". Was that ever embarrassing.
Oma is grandma
fiets is bicycle
omafiets is <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ofx4do>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
<snip>
More on the controversy here:
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-research-examines-
role-of-clouds-in-climate-change>
or
http://tinyurl.com/4xmurwo
There's probably more to follow, as Spencer didn't have a chance to
formulate a reply as yet.
Short version:
The global climate is warming, and Spencer's premises and data are either
wrong or too handpicked.
In the meantime our town (Fair Lawn, NJ) is preparing for another flooding
after the horrendous Irene flooding less than 2 weeks ago.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <
>> In the meantime our town (Fair Lawn, NJ) is preparing for another
>> flooding after the horrendous Irene flooding less than 2 weeks ago.
>
> Global flooding?? (grin)
No, the flood from Irene was the second highest flood ever (1903 was
higher). Global flooding only happened once before (Noah) that we know of.
Whether it is more building in the flood plain, coincidental heavy rains,
or whatever, we have had 3 times 100-year floods in the last few years.
I'm fairly safe, but I'll have higher school taxes next year, since 1 of
the 2 middle schools flooded, and it is taking even longer than "they"
thought to clean it up.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>
> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
> is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back to
the ice age.
>
> Back in the day, the White House had science advisors who helped shaped
> policy. A certain recent retard in the White House dictated policy
> first, and told his "advisors" to conform to it or be fired.
Now be nice to Carter.
On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
>> any type of accurate prediction.
>
> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
> further back.
I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I
have heard. Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years ago
when electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it is
being collected today? You see 200 years ago most data that was
collected was being done so very sporadically and with inconstant
results from much more crude mechanical instruments.
> If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
Se above, again common sense prevails.
>> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>
>> a. It became a politically popular topic.
>> b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
>> c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought
>> global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought
>> in any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
>
> Assuming that the only people who would be interested in a clean
> environment would be "greenies" (whatever they are) or other left-wing
> radicals is an odd way to look at it. From what I've seen Ducks
> Unlimited isn't a group dominated by raving leftists, and yet they seem
> to think protecting the environment is a worthwhile goal.
Yeah! Lets let Ducks Unlimited be the "End All" to all the problems in
the world.
On 9/2/2011 6:25 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]
> september.org>, [email protected] says...
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <[email protected]>,
>>>> Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>>>> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
>>>> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
>>>> is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>>> Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
>>> over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back to
>>> the ice age.
>> AGW = anthropomorphic global warming, Leon. Anthropomorphic is a pretty
>> big word, I know, but you have the internet at your fingertips.
> Actually it's "anthropogenic".
>
>
<snip>
LOL It's always funny when someone writes something stupid and it isn't
me. :-)
Anthropomorphic is a big word.
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>>> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200
>>> years?
>
>> Can you document that they have?
>
> Scientists can tell us what the climate was like thousands of years
> ago in parts of the world that today are deserts, for example by the
> remains of the plants and animals that lived there including human
> beings who grew crops where today that would be impossible without
> irrigation. How do you suppose they do that without detailed records
> made with electronic instruments? Is it *really* so hard to figure
> out that they have other methods of determining such things? If
> scientists haven't studied climate changes throughout and prior to
> human history, how come you can go down to the library and read books
> about them doing exactly that? If as Leon claims scientists haven't
> looked at climate past 200 years, how they they do things like this?
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/
>
> Gee--ice cores, growth rings in trees, sediments in oceans and lakes,
> preserved remains of plants and animals including those in human
> settlements--who could have guessed such things existed and have been
> used to study climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, what
> a revelation.
>
> Seriously, when did ignorance become the preferred state for so many
> people?
and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
computer generated models
On Sep 3, 7:43=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote innews:aZGdnag8IcgtGfzTnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@=
giganews.com:
>
> > On 9/2/2011 7:29 PM, Han wrote:
> >> Swingman<[email protected]> =A0wrote in
> >>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a
> >>> rational explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing
> >>> to embrace AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar
> >>> opposite.
>
> >> Not sure of the answer to your question, as I am not sure that the
> >> correlation is anything other than perceived or coincidental.
>
> > LOL ... like the correlations used to bolster AGW arguments?
>
> >:)
>
> Yep. =A0But there is a relatively logical theory behind AGW. =A0In the ca=
se
> of conservatives vs progressives, I don't know of the "theory", as do
> you, I think, because otherwise you wouldn't ask!
>
> Have to get back to wood working now the temps are lower and the family
> about to go home ...
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
The "logic" part that bothers me is this. They have data going
back about 600,000 years that shows I think 3 cycles of CO2
and temerature. That data came from ice core samples.
Melting them in a lab, they captture the gas and determine
the CO2. The ratio of isotopes in the samples gives a
proxy for temperature.
Let's assume that data is correct. The "logic" problem
is that when the data is graphed, in each of those
cycles, temperature begins to rise for a few hundred
to about 1500 years BEFORE CO2 increases. Now,
if CO2 is causing the warming, why is it not the other
way around? I have heard that question asked of
global warming scientists and have never heard them
answer it.
On the other hand, I have heard an ocean
scientist from MIT explain that the world's oceans are
huge reservoirs of CO2. As the earth warms from
increased solar energy output from solar cycles,
the oceans slowly warm,
releasing the CO2, just as a warming soda bottle
would. That explains the increase in CO2 and the
delay in timing.
If anyone has the manmade glolbal warming
proponents answer to why temperature leads
CO2 increase, I'd love to hear it.
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:40:09 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>No, I prefer the old days when you had a warning about a serious threat,
>not to be constantly bombarded with scarey scenarios this year because
>the predictions for named storms is going to be exceptionally high and
>no storm actually hits the main land.
Using Florida for example, almost every year I hear about mass
evacuations. And, that leads me to ask. How necessary are these
evacuations? (in your opinion) Or, is it just the close monitoring of
every step of these storms that inflames hysteria? ~ Details that just
were not available thirty years ago.
Perhaps in other years, damage and deaths were not so broadcast? Maybe
all the rest of us who were not experiencing those storms just assumed
nothing was happening?
And finally I have to wonder, what kind of existence is it when one
has to board up their home and flee to safety almost every year? (At
least that's how it sounds to me) If this scenario is real, then why
do so many people live there and move there every year? What kind of
life is that?
Makes me feel a little sheltered in my Toronto, Canada abode where in
all of the forty five plus years I've lived here, there has not been
one natural disaster, at least none that I'd classify as so. The
closest we get to natural disasters is when the garbage union or the
Toronto Transit Commission goes on strike. Perhaps, the one year the
mayor called the army out to shovel snow qualifies as a disaster. :)
On 9/4/2011 12:21 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:40:09 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>> No, I prefer the old days when you had a warning about a serious threat,
>> not to be constantly bombarded with scarey scenarios this year because
>> the predictions for named storms is going to be exceptionally high and
>> no storm actually hits the main land.
>
> Using Florida for example, almost every year I hear about mass
> evacuations. And, that leads me to ask. How necessary are these
> evacuations? (in your opinion) Or, is it just the close monitoring of
> every step of these storms that inflames hysteria? ~ Details that just
> were not available thirty years ago.
I think it is the sensationalism by one station trying to "out do" the
next with a lot of BS. I believe we are gathering more information
about a normal yearly occurrence that has been going on for thousands of
years and the unqualified are summing up that information in a way that
hopefully will win them a journalistic prize. Add in the
scientists/experts that need to prove something in order to keep the
money coming in to fund their research.
I believe this is happening in all aspects of weather and climate research.
Evacuation is important if you live in a low lying area where tidal
surge is a threat. Running from the wind is like running from the flu
virus.
>
> Perhaps in other years, damage and deaths were not so broadcast? Maybe
> all the rest of us who were not experiencing those storms just assumed
> nothing was happening?
As far back as I can remember, early 60's I do recall reports from
damage and deaths but not so much from the storms that were missed/
never seen, and or were never going to be a threat. Today storms are
named and tracked long before we know which continent they might impact.
Do we really need to know about "every" disturbance coming off the
African continent that might turn into a hurricane and might have some
impact on us 21 days out? I say fill us in 7 days out.
>
> And finally I have to wonder, what kind of existence is it when one
> has to board up their home and flee to safety almost every year? (At
> least that's how it sounds to me) If this scenario is real, then why
> do so many people live there and move there every year? What kind of
> life is that?
There again the media and the weather experts are responsible for the
hysteria. Most people that live in the hurricane areas that have been
through these storms do not board up and do not leave.
>
> Makes me feel a little sheltered in my Toronto, Canada abode where in
> all of the forty five plus years I've lived here, there has not been
> one natural disaster, at least none that I'd classify as so. The
> closest we get to natural disasters is when the garbage union or the
> Toronto Transit Commission goes on strike. Perhaps, the one year the
> mayor called the army out to shovel snow qualifies as a disaster. :)
Every area has its issues ;~)
On 9/2/2011 7:29 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
>> explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
>> AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
>
> Not sure of the answer to your question, as I am not sure that the
> correlation is anything other than perceived or coincidental.
LOL ... like the correlations used to bolster AGW arguments?
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 04 Sep 2011 23:47:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 04 Sep 2011 12:48:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Why do you assume that farts will "screw something up"? Shouldn't
>>>> you have to prove that? Doesn't *science* demand it? You're making
>>>> the claim...
>>>>
>>>> Feed-forward? Ok, make that two proofs. Hand in your work by
>>>> Tuesday and I want to see a working model of the time machine.
>>>
>>>Sorry, too lazy to explain everything. Farts contain methane, a
>>>greenhouse gas much, much more potent than CO2. Some think that
>>>increases of methane in the atmosphere (difficult to quantitate such
>>>low amounts) are even more of a problem than CO2.
>>
>> But does that fart "screw everything up"? Prove it. You still have a
>> couple of days.
>>
>>>You all know of feedback, where an increase of product diminishes the
>>>reaction, so the reaction is self-limiting to an extent. Screeching
>>>sound systems are also called subject to feedback, but it is really
>>>feed- forward, where the produced sounds get further amplified by the
>>>too close microphone or other acoustic (or electrical) effects.
>>
>> No, it is still "feedback". Feed-forward implies feeding a signal
>> ahead of itself, in this case it would be forward in time. Obviously,
>> that's not possible. (The term you're looking for is "positive
>> feedback").
>>
>>>In a nuclear reactor or atomic bomb, the same happens and is called a
>>>chain reaction. Same for the process of bloodclotting - a chain
>>>reaction set off by small changes having a big effect.
>>
>> That's still not "feed-forward". (The term you're looking for is
>> "avalanche".)
>>
>>>In a nuclear reactor and
>>>in normal people's blood, the chain reaction is limited by controls,
>>>which can sometimes go awry. The global warming effects we see now
>>>are also similar. So far the controls seem to be working somewhat, at
>>>least the result today is not yet devastating. Whether or not we can
>>>keep things in limits by doing nothing or something is what we seem to
>>>disagree about.
>>
>> No, you still haven't proven that it "screws everything up".
>>
>>>Just like the most recent housing debacle was very limited in Texas
>>>because that state had more stringent regulations than others for
>>>mortgage qualification. So regulations (and the very rare commodity
>>>of common sense) can control otherwise out of control systems. To me
>>>that means that some measures should be taken to control CO2 and other
>>>greenhouse gases. But there seem to be lobyists who are set against
>>>that,because of provincial self interests. As in the housing debacle,
>>>selfinterest (of banks mainly) and lack of common sense (home buyers),
>>>the global warming thing could explode in our faces. And yes, the
>>>laws of unintended consequences can put a bad damper on our enthusiasm
>>>...
>>
>> More words. You still haven't proven that it "screws everything up".
>>
>
>OK, positive feedback. Or chain reaction.
If you're going to tout your scientific understanding, use the accepted terms.
>If that really occurs (I
>added the if) then the ultimate result depends on the timeframe and rate
>of positive feedback.
The economic disaster *will* occur, if carbon is so limited. You're betting a
known for an unknown? The fact is that the only reason we've cleaned up the
environment as much as we have is that we can afford to.
>In the case of a nuclear chainreaction as in a
>U235 bomb, the rate is rather high, and the result almost
>indistinguishable from instantaneous.
Tell that to a nuke scientist.
>In climate we deal with rate of
>distribution of the culprit gases (and a host of other factors). No one
>yet knows whether there is a real tipping point beyond which things
>become irreversible, or whether it is slow enough to be controllable.
There's that "technical" term, "tipping point". You can only surmise there is
such a thing. The fact is that we know about many negative feedback
mechanisms but none positive, or positive enough to create a "tipping point".
We *certainly* have no idea what or where it would be. In short, AGW models
are all lies.
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 14:38:26 -0700 (PDT), pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 3, 7:43 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 9/3/2011 8:05 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> > On 9/2/2011 5:05 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> >> In article<[email protected]>,
>> >> "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>
>> >>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>> >>> computer generated models
>>
>> >> And we can't use computer generated models to forecast tax receipts, the
>> >> economy, or even the Super Bowl winner. Most systems are too complex to
>> >> be modeled accurately, but that never stops anyone from trying and
>> >> pretending the models actually mean something.
>>
>> > Precisely, until the models become accurate they remain assumptions.
>>
>> Yesterday the weather experts said it would hit 91° here. Only made it
>> to 82° on my weather stations. So much for their models:-). I've seen
>> them lie about the 90° mark almost as much as the amount of snow we get.
>> Not sure if it's just the lying, sensationalist, news media or what,
>> but I know the f**ker's are lying.
>>
>> --
>> Jack
>> Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =====> Convenient Lies!http://jbstein.com
>
>
>Why do they call Greenland Greenland when it is really Whiteland? Did
>it use to be warmer there?
Yes.
>If so maybe we should be concerned about
>global cooling.
Indeed. Warmer is far better than cooler. Food doesn't like cold.
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:18:15 -0700, DGDevin wrote:
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> What the real confusion here is that global warming enthusiasts/greenies
>> have only considered data that does not include enough information to make
>> a reasonable assumption one way or the others. Two hundred years worth of
>> data is simply not enough to make any type of accurate prediction.
>
> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists studying
> climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years? And no,
> something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't qualify as
> documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the authors of a
> scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any further back.
>
> If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
>
>> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>
>> a. It became a politically popular topic.
>> b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
>> c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought
>> global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought in
>> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
>
> Assuming that the only people who would be interested in a clean environment
> would be "greenies" (whatever they are) or other left-wing radicals is an
> odd way to look at it. From what I've seen Ducks Unlimited isn't a group
> dominated by raving leftists, and yet they seem to think protecting the
> environment is a worthwhile goal.
Can you demonstrate any calibration to any measurement past 100 years ago,
a vital component in quantitative scientific research? Can you cite any
experiments that demonstrate a cause and effect relationship (that rules
out all correlation studies) between human activity and average global
temperatures?
On 04 Sep 2011 12:48:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Why do you assume that farts will "screw something up"? Shouldn't you
>> have to prove that? Doesn't *science* demand it? You're making the
>> claim...
>>
>> Feed-forward? Ok, make that two proofs. Hand in your work by Tuesday
>> and I want to see a working model of the time machine.
>
>Sorry, too lazy to explain everything. Farts contain methane, a
>greenhouse gas much, much more potent than CO2. Some think that
>increases of methane in the atmosphere (difficult to quantitate such low
>amounts) are even more of a problem than CO2.
But does that fart "screw everything up"? Prove it. You still have a couple
of days.
>You all know of feedback, where an increase of product diminishes the
>reaction, so the reaction is self-limiting to an extent. Screeching
>sound systems are also called subject to feedback, but it is really feed-
>forward, where the produced sounds get further amplified by the too close
>microphone or other acoustic (or electrical) effects.
No, it is still "feedback". Feed-forward implies feeding a signal ahead of
itself, in this case it would be forward in time. Obviously, that's not
possible. (The term you're looking for is "positive feedback").
>In a nuclear reactor or atomic bomb, the same happens and is called a
>chain reaction. Same for the process of bloodclotting - a chain reaction
>set off by small changes having a big effect.
That's still not "feed-forward". (The term you're looking for is "avalanche".)
>In a nuclear reactor and
>in normal people's blood, the chain reaction is limited by controls,
>which can sometimes go awry. The global warming effects we see now are
>also similar. So far the controls seem to be working somewhat, at least
>the result today is not yet devastating. Whether or not we can keep
>things in limits by doing nothing or something is what we seem to
>disagree about.
No, you still haven't proven that it "screws everything up".
>Just like the most recent housing debacle was very limited in Texas
>because that state had more stringent regulations than others for
>mortgage qualification. So regulations (and the very rare commodity of
>common sense) can control otherwise out of control systems. To me that
>means that some measures should be taken to control CO2 and other
>greenhouse gases. But there seem to be lobyists who are set against
>that,because of provincial self interests. As in the housing debacle,
>selfinterest (of banks mainly) and lack of common sense (home buyers),
>the global warming thing could explode in our faces. And yes, the laws
>of unintended consequences can put a bad damper on our enthusiasm ...
More words. You still haven't proven that it "screws everything up".
In article <[email protected]>,
"ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote:
> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
> computer generated models
And we can't use computer generated models to forecast tax receipts, the
economy, or even the Super Bowl winner. Most systems are too complex to
be modeled accurately, but that never stops anyone from trying and
pretending the models actually mean something.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
In article <[email protected]>,
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Sw
> Scientists can tell us what the climate was like thousands of years ago in
> parts of the world that today are deserts, for example by the remains of the
> plants and animals that lived there including human beings who grew crops
> where today that would be impossible without irrigation. How do you suppose
> they do that without detailed records made with electronic instruments?
Which of course is completely different from what we are talking about,
what impacts on climate change of any sort and, even more important, how
man could change it. That is the current point of the debate, not what
is happening, but whether it is man-made or naturally occurring or some
combination of both.
I
> Gee--ice cores, growth rings in trees, sediments in oceans and lakes,
> preserved remains of plants and animals including those in human
> settlements--who could have guessed such things existed and have been used
> to study climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, what a
> revelation.
Again, largely shows us the what, but not the why. (Although ice cores
may be most helpful in this manner since they show precipitation and
thus atmospheric conditions.
>
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
On Sep 2, 7:47=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Leon" wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> What the real confusion here is that global warming
> >> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
> >> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
> >> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
> >> any type of accurate prediction.
>
> > Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
> > studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
> > And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
> > qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
> > authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
> > further back.
>
> I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I
> have heard. =A0Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years ag=
o
> when electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it is
> being collected today? =A0You see 200 years ago most data that was
> collected was being done so very sporadically and with inconstant
> results from much more crude mechanical instruments.
>
> > If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe =
it?
>
> Se above, again common sense prevails.
>
> >> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>
> >> a. It became a politically popular topic.
> >> b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
> >> c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought
> >> global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought
> >> in any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environmen=
t.
>
> > Assuming that the only people who would be interested in a clean
> > environment would be "greenies" (whatever they are) or other left-wing
> > radicals is an odd way to look at it. From what I've seen Ducks
> > Unlimited isn't a group dominated by raving leftists, and yet they seem
> > to think protecting the environment is a worthwhile goal.
>
> Yeah! Lets let Ducks Unlimited be =A0the "End All" to all the problems in
> the world.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why are mechanical things crude. Electronic things are actually
crude. Especially digital ones.
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:24:24 -0700, Smitty Two
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><[email protected]>,
> Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>
>Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
>science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
>is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
Don't just quote lies, sTwo, go hither onto the Internet and read the
real background on Algore's book/movie farce. It shows that the
researcher he used grabbed (supposedly at random) 90 out of 900 papers
on the subject and most 'just happened to be' alarming. Now research
the other papers and find that there are a whole lot of ifs in there
and a whole lot of deniers, not just alarmists. Feh!
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On Sep 3, 4:59=A0pm, Higgs Boson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 7:47=A0am, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/2/2011 5:05 PM, Han wrote:
>
> > > Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0wrote in
> > >news:540e041f-2269-4612-803d-6a48a72c699b@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com=
:
>
> > >> On Sep 2, 12:33 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> =A0wrote:
> > >>> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>
> > >>>> There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer
> > >>>> and Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and th=
e
> > >>>> theory behind. =A0Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible f=
or
> > >>>> publicati
> > >> on of
> > >>>> this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the
> > >>>> paper at
> > >> =A0 the
> > >>>> time he decided to publish it:
>
> > >>>> "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science.
> > >>>> Their
> > >> =A0 aim
> > >>>> is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a
> > >>>> rigorous p
> > >> eer
> > >>>> review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to
> > >>>> identi
> > >> fy
> > >>>> fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately,
> > >>>> as ma
> > >> ny
> > >>>> climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change
> > >>>> debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper
> > >>>> by Spencer a
> > >> nd
> > >>>> Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most
> > >>>> like
> > >> ly
> > >>>> problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been
> > >>>> publishe
> > >> d.
> > >>>> After having become aware of the situation, and studying the
> > >>>> various pr
> > >> o
> > >>>> and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper.
> > >>>> Therefore,
> > >> =A0 I
> > >>>> would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision
> > >>>> and,
> > >> as a
> > >>>> result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing=
.
> > >>>> [..
> > >> .]"
> > >>>>http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>
> > >>> I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's bee=
n
> > >>> going on since the ice age. =A0Ant then there is that season that
> > >>> immediately follows winter every year.
>
> > >>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
> > >>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not includ=
e
> > >>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
> > >>> others. =A0Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to =
make
> > >>> any type of accurate predictio
> > >> n.
>
> > >>> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>
> > >>> a. =A0It became a politically popular topic.
> > >>> b. =A0Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
> > >>> c. =A0Pleasing the greenies by cleaning =A0up the environment has b=
rought
> > >>> global warming to the light of day. =A0Global warming was not a tho=
ught
> > >>> i
> > >> n
> > >>> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environmen=
t.
>
> > >> Anybody lives close to Leon? Buy that man as many draught beers as
> > >> he's likely to consume in a sitting and send me the bill.
>
> > >> Because that is SPOT on.....
>
> > > Sorry, nonsense. =A0With all due respect for both Leon and Rob, all
> > > available data indicates that manmade greenhouse gases contribute to =
the
> > > warming of the earth, globally and averaged, over sites and time (i.e=
. 3-
> > > dimensional averaging and drawing a line that is an average of severa=
l
> > > years, following that with time. =A0The fatc that global warming has
> > > happened since the last iceage is correct and irrelevant. =A0The
> > > superimposition of the manmade components has added an order or two o=
f
> > > magnitude to the rate of increasing temperature. =A0We can fight and
> > > discuss all we want, the proof of the hotsoup will be there in anothe=
r
> > > 35, 50 or 100 years. =A0But then my teeth won't hurt me no more, and =
it
> > > will be a problem for the Chinese or the Arabs (no discriminatory int=
ent,
> > > just a semi-educated guess at who will be in power by then, the US ha=
ving
> > > selfdestructed much, much faster than the Romans).
>
> > "If" the earth is becoming warmer because of man, it is because the
> > atmosphere has been cleaned up enough that more sun light is reaching
> > the earth. =A0If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
> This is so incredibly uninformed that one doesn't know where to
> start. =A0Atmosphere being cleaned up? =A0Pulueeze! =A0
The EPA seems to have data that says the air
in the USA has been cleaned up dramatically in
the past 25 years and emissions are way down.
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
>Are you not aware
> that, e.g. =A0in countries where we ship our electronics women and
> children are bending over old computers, extracting the valuable toxic
> components while breathing in their death-dealing fumes? =A0For just ONE
> example.
PC's in a scrap heap are not the atmosphere. And perhaps
those activities would be taking place here in conditions which
are far better controlled. But one consequence of strict
regulations in one place is that certain activities and
jobs then move elsewhere.
Just like the discussion on blocking the pipeline for
tar sand oil from Canada into the USA. If we don't
use that oil, they will just sell it on the world market
to someone else. And they may burn it in cars that
are far more polluting than cars in NA.
=A0>To you, people driving less polluting cars in your developed
> country means the "atmosphere has been cleaned up"!!!
No, the EPA data says it.
>
> Are you not aware that white ice -- glaciers, snowpack, etc. =A0REFLECTS
> certain wavelengths of sunlight such as infra-red.
> But now that the ice and snow are melting at unprecedented historical
> rates, due largely to CO2 entering the atmosphere in huge quantities,
> the oceans are a beautiful dark blue -- which ABSORBS infra-red
> radiation, aka heat.
Don't know where these new dark blue oceans are.
But here in the northeast USA they are the same color
they always have been. I suspect they are most likely
a figment of your imagination.
>
> Oh, I give up.
About time.
=A0 Some choose to cling to their little Faith structures
> rather than looking at the evidence.
>
> HB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On 02 Sep 2011 22:17:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> The paper under question deals with the correlation (actually the lack
>> thereof) of recent satellite temperature monitoring results, with
>> computer climate model methods, using data from both between 2000 to
>> 2010 ... NOT with tree rings, or any other form of attempts to
>> interpolate temperature reading when temperature recording devices were
>> unknown.
>
>My understanding of the controversy is that many climatologists doubt the
>accuracy, or the proper calibration of the methods of Spencer & Brasswell
>(sp?).
The whole of S&B's paper was questioning the climatologists' accuracy.
Spencer interviewed tons of modelers and they all complained that
their data was lacking, their models wouldn't reverse, etc. They'd
added hundreds of new datapoints and the models are getting more
accurate, but they're still lacking. Go ask one, Han. They'll tell
you. Read Spencer's books, find the people he asked, and ask them
yourself.
>That combined with the stated positions of these scientists on the
>theory of global warming, and their sources of funding make me disbelieve
>their results. Like it has been stated before - follow the money (or
>cherchez la femme in different circumstances).
OK, quick: How many researchers are being funded by the U.S. gov't (+
liberals who believe in AGWK) versus how many are being funded by The
Evil Oil Companies and the conservatives? Hint: the ratio is likely
higher than 1,000:1, respectively. Follow the peer pressure, get the
money/research grants.
Didn't anyone read the transcripts of the emails from East Anglia?
"Don't peer-review his papers. He doesn't believe in global warming."
and fifty other subversions. No, most of that was swept under the rug
with a denial of the data tampering, period. How can that be? The
media are Believers.
Last question: Have you ever seen a rich global warming skeptic?
(Take the hint. ;)
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On Sep 6, 12:29=A0pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Innews:4245e6d6-fb9a-4e71-a901-cffe6a138328@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com,
> Robatoy <[email protected]> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 11:18 am, "Twayne" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> Innews:[email protected],
> >> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> typed:
> >> <[email protected]> =A0typed:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>> It won't be taken as "gospel" by any thnkng persons
> >>>> with
> >>>> open minds and a genuine interest in things other than
> >>>> demonstrating their egoes. Whenever anyones says "trust
> >>>> =A0 =A0 me" it's time to put the microscope on them. If
> >>>> they
> >>>> had any credibility they wouldn't have to beg for
> >>>> =A0 =A0 "trust". You're only one voice amongst a din of
> >>>> others with various positions. In fact, I have to
> >>>> wonder
> >>>> why you'd post this drivel here at all; there =A0are
> >>>> better newsgroups for you to be heard in unless
> >>>> you've worn out your welcome there.
>
> >>>> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
>
> >>>> HTH,
>
> >>>> Twayne`
>
> >>> You putz! =A0I recommended in an earlier post that you
> >>> stick around for a few years to feel the group out
> >>> before making any recommendations as to who should go
> >>> where to post.
>
> >> You should read the RFCs about OT posts; it would appear
> >> you never have.
>
> >>> I suppose you were just itching to spew your thoughts
> >>> about some one asking you to trust them.
>
> >> "Trust me" is one of the first indicators a person has
> >> little to no verifiable information. It will affect your
> >> credibility every time.
>
> >>> If you don't stop trying to be the he-man protector of
> >>> this group you are going to find very quickly that your
> >>> words are going to fall on deaf ears. =A0You can trust me
> >>> on that.
>
> >> I can trust you, eh? That's like another "trust me"
> >> comment. Thinking people don't write the kinds of posts
> >> you write. =A0And if this bothered you all that much, your
> >> skin is way too thin for usenet; try the forums next
> >> time.
>
> >> I suspect, they way you don't know what you're talking
> >> about that I've been around a LOT longer than you have.
> >> Now, what was your woodworking post again? Ask mommy if
> >> you're confused; she's probably more knowledgeable than
> >> =A0 =A0you are. If you don't like a post, don't read it. Or
> >> is that too hard for your
> >> lazy ass to comprehend?
>
> >> HTH,
>
> >> Twayne`
>
> > Yup... grade # 1 asshole. Buhbyes 'Twayne'. Guys that get
> > their jollies pissing people off have a very short
> > lifespan...at least around here.
>
> If it pisses you off, like I sad before, you don't belong here. It
> shouldn't, and you know little of what you're doing/saying.
> =A0 =A0I've no wish to join your little troll-fest here which seems to be=
all
> that's on your mind, nor to read any further of your posts in this thread=
.
> See you in the Sunday papers.
ANY idea how stupid you sound?
On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
>> any type of accurate prediction.
>
> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
> further back.
Actually for something that has not happened there is probably no
documentation. The burden of proof lies with you .
>
> If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
Use your brain, look around, is the sky falling?
On 9/2/2011 3:14 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>>> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
>>> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
>>> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
>>> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
>>> further back.
>
>> I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I
>> have heard. Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years
>> ago when electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it
>> is being collected today? You see 200 years ago most data that was
>> collected was being done so very sporadically and with inconstant
>> results from much more crude mechanical instruments.
>
> The thermometer dates back to the 16th century and writing has been
> around for thousands of years, so while it is true that detailed weather
> record keeping is a more recent state of affairs, that does not mean
> human observation of weather cannot be trusted more than a couple of
> hundred years back. There are also other ways to study weather/climate
> such as examining the growth rings of trees which can tell scientists a
> great deal about temperature and rainfall in the past. Bones and even
> fossils can be used as well by showing what kinds of plants and animals
> lived in various locations, that's how we know that areas that are
> desert today were once arable. Even archeology can contribute to climate
> studies, e.g. the remains of what people ate hundreds or thousands of
> years ago tell us what kind of crops they grew and that certainly tells
> us about the climate in the area at the time. Consider the clear
> evidence of what is happening today with species associated with warmer
> areas moving north and living at higher elevations due to increasing
> temperatures--you don't need weather records to see that these species
> are on the move as the climate changes, and thus it is possible to apply
> that knowledge to the distant past. In other words you do not need
> detailed records and electronic instruments to figure out what the
> climate was like in the distant past. *That* is common sense.
>
>>> Assuming that the only people who would be interested in a clean
>>> environment would be "greenies" (whatever they are) or other left-wing
>>> radicals is an odd way to look at it. From what I've seen Ducks
>>> Unlimited isn't a group dominated by raving leftists, and yet they seem
>>> to think protecting the environment is a worthwhile goal.
>
>> Yeah! Lets let Ducks Unlimited be the "End All" to all the problems in
>> the world.
>
> See, the way it works in the grownup world is you respond in a rational
> manner to what someone actually posts rather than making up something
> silly and responding to that instead. Or not, your choice, and clearly
> your choice is to sidestep anything that doesnât agree with your views.
>
Please reread what I said, I mentioned nothing about thermometers not
being around, I mentioned "electronic" instruments not being around. No
one was able to deduct any conclusions of what was going on with the
world atmosphere until electronic gathering and calculating came into
the picture. Further taking samples of trees and earth are simply
interpretations of what might have happened, no a guarantee.
On Sep 2, 6:05=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote innews:540e041f-2269-4612-803d-6a=
[email protected]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 12:33=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>
> >> > There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer
> >> > and Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the
> >> > theory behind. =A0Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for
> >> > publicati
> > on of
> >> > this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the
> >> > paper at
> > =A0the
> >> > time he decided to publish it:
>
> >> > "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science.
> >> > Their
> > =A0aim
> >> > is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a
> >> > rigorous p
> > eer
> >> > review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to
> >> > identi
> > fy
> >> > fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately,
> >> > as ma
> > ny
> >> > climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change
> >> > debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper
> >> > by Spencer a
> > nd
> >> > Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most
> >> > like
> > ly
> >> > problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been
> >> > publishe
> > d.
> >> > After having become aware of the situation, and studying the
> >> > various pr
> > o
> >> > and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper.
> >> > Therefore,
> > =A0I
> >> > would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision
> >> > and,
> > as a
> >> > result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
> >> > [..
> > .]"
> >> >http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>
> >> I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's been
> >> going on since the ice age. =A0Ant then there is that season that
> >> immediately follows winter every year.
>
> >> What the real confusion here is that global warming
> >> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
> >> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
> >> others. =A0Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to mak=
e
> >> any type of accurate predictio
> > n.
>
> >> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>
> >> a. =A0It became a politically popular topic.
> >> b. =A0Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
> >> c. =A0Pleasing the greenies by cleaning =A0up the environment has brou=
ght
> >> global warming to the light of day. =A0Global warming was not a though=
t
> >> i
> > n
> >> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
>
> > Anybody lives close to Leon? Buy that man as many draught beers as
> > he's likely to consume in a sitting and send me the bill.
>
> > Because that is SPOT on.....
>
> Sorry, nonsense. =A0With all due respect for both Leon and Rob, all
> available data indicates that manmade greenhouse gases contribute to the
> warming of the earth, globally and averaged,
----etc...
I appreciate where you're coming from, Han, but it is the relative
amount of influence of contributing gasses that is being distorted.
Fact: If *I* pass gas in Sarnia, there WILL be a time when you'll be
able to measure the effects in NYC. Fact. Indisputable. You'll be
dealing with atoms/cu.mile, but still...
Just because we have learned to move the decimal point, endlessly, on
our test gear, doesn't mean the threat becomes larger just because our
magnifying glass becomes stronger.
Of course our emissions are contributing to the overall picture, but
is Serge's Lada melting Greenland?
Environmentalists are those who travel through sewers in glass-
bottomed boats. (Not mine)
On Sep 2, 3:11=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Now, on to more important stuff: =A0http://goo.gl/xAANu
>
> (Be Careful! =A0Dump is like Wimp: an addictive timesucker.)
Where is the "Like" button on Usenet? :-)
Luigi
On Sep 3, 7:47=A0am, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 5:05 PM, Han wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0wrote in
> >news:540e041f-2269-4612-803d-6a48a72c699b@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On Sep 2, 12:33 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> =A0wrote:
> >>> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>
> >>>> There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer
> >>>> and Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the
> >>>> theory behind. =A0Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for
> >>>> publicati
> >> on of
> >>>> this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the
> >>>> paper at
> >> =A0 the
> >>>> time he decided to publish it:
>
> >>>> "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science.
> >>>> Their
> >> =A0 aim
> >>>> is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a
> >>>> rigorous p
> >> eer
> >>>> review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to
> >>>> identi
> >> fy
> >>>> fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately,
> >>>> as ma
> >> ny
> >>>> climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change
> >>>> debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper
> >>>> by Spencer a
> >> nd
> >>>> Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most
> >>>> like
> >> ly
> >>>> problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been
> >>>> publishe
> >> d.
> >>>> After having become aware of the situation, and studying the
> >>>> various pr
> >> o
> >>>> and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper.
> >>>> Therefore,
> >> =A0 I
> >>>> would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision
> >>>> and,
> >> as a
> >>>> result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
> >>>> [..
> >> .]"
> >>>>http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>
> >>> I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's been
> >>> going on since the ice age. =A0Ant then there is that season that
> >>> immediately follows winter every year.
>
> >>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
> >>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
> >>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
> >>> others. =A0Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to ma=
ke
> >>> any type of accurate predictio
> >> n.
>
> >>> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>
> >>> a. =A0It became a politically popular topic.
> >>> b. =A0Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
> >>> c. =A0Pleasing the greenies by cleaning =A0up the environment has bro=
ught
> >>> global warming to the light of day. =A0Global warming was not a thoug=
ht
> >>> i
> >> n
> >>> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
>
> >> Anybody lives close to Leon? Buy that man as many draught beers as
> >> he's likely to consume in a sitting and send me the bill.
>
> >> Because that is SPOT on.....
>
> > Sorry, nonsense. =A0With all due respect for both Leon and Rob, all
> > available data indicates that manmade greenhouse gases contribute to th=
e
> > warming of the earth, globally and averaged, over sites and time (i.e. =
3-
> > dimensional averaging and drawing a line that is an average of several
> > years, following that with time. =A0The fatc that global warming has
> > happened since the last iceage is correct and irrelevant. =A0The
> > superimposition of the manmade components has added an order or two of
> > magnitude to the rate of increasing temperature. =A0We can fight and
> > discuss all we want, the proof of the hotsoup will be there in another
> > 35, 50 or 100 years. =A0But then my teeth won't hurt me no more, and it
> > will be a problem for the Chinese or the Arabs (no discriminatory inten=
t,
> > just a semi-educated guess at who will be in power by then, the US havi=
ng
> > selfdestructed much, much faster than the Romans).
>
> "If" the earth is becoming warmer because of man, it is because the
> atmosphere has been cleaned up enough that more sun light is reaching
> the earth. =A0If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This is so incredibly uninformed that one doesn't know where to
start. Atmosphere being cleaned up? Pulueeze! Are you not aware
that, e.g. in countries where we ship our electronics women and
children are bending over old computers, extracting the valuable toxic
components while breathing in their death-dealing fumes? For just ONE
example. To you, people driving less polluting cars in your developed
country means the "atmosphere has been cleaned up"!!!
Are you not aware that white ice -- glaciers, snowpack, etc. REFLECTS
certain wavelengths of sunlight such as infra-red.
But now that the ice and snow are melting at unprecedented historical
rates, due largely to CO2 entering the atmosphere in huge quantities,
the oceans are a beautiful dark blue -- which ABSORBS infra-red
radiation, aka heat.
Oh, I give up. Some choose to cling to their little Faith structures
rather than looking at the evidence.
HB
Twayne wrote:
>
> If it pisses you off, like I sad before, you don't belong here. It
> shouldn't, and you know little of what you're doing/saying.
> I've no wish to join your little troll-fest here which seems to be
> all that's on your mind, nor to read any further of your posts in
> this thread. See you in the Sunday papers.
Don't go plonking this guy - keep him around... he's funny...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article
<ddae1964-3f3e-4a94-986c-fbab6af403bd@x14g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Higgs Boson <[email protected]> wrote:
Some cut.
> Are you not aware that white ice -- glaciers, snowpack, etc. REFLECTS
> certain wavelengths of sunlight such as infra-red.
> But now that the ice and snow are melting at unprecedented historical
> rates, due largely to CO2 entering the atmosphere in huge quantities,
> the oceans are a beautiful dark blue -- which ABSORBS infra-red
> radiation, aka heat.
>
> Oh, I give up. Some choose to cling to their little Faith structures
> rather than looking at the evidence.
>
> HB
This site claims glaciers are growing.
http://www.iceagenow.com/index.htm
I noticed one other thing as I glanced at it. There was
supposedly half the amount of ice in the Arctic at times than there is
now.
On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
> There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer and
> Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the theory
> behind. Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for publication of
> this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the paper at the
> time he decided to publish it:
>
> "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim
> is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer
> review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify
> fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many
> climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate
> pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and
> Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely
> problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
> After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro
> and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I
> would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a
> result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]"
> http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>
I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's been
going on since the ice age. Ant then there is that season that
immediately follows winter every year.
What the real confusion here is that global warming enthusiasts/greenies
have only considered data that does not include enough information to
make a reasonable assumption one way or the others. Two hundred years
worth of data is simply not enough to make any type of accurate prediction.
What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
a. It became a politically popular topic.
b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought
global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought in
any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Making the switch from filthy coal to clean nuclear would solve your
> carbon/CO2 problem overnight. Nudging the liberal nuke haters on that
> one would go far.
I'm for nukes. But there need to be more/better safeguards.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 03 Sep 2011 12:04:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han, what is your assessment of 1) the IPCC reports, 2) the Kyoto
>> Protocol/Treaty, and 3) Cap & Trade effects on climate?
>
>Political reports and tax policies that are difficult to enforce
>globally, to say the least? I think they may all not be more than points
>for discussion.
>
>> Zero net change at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars does not
>> make any of them good investments in my book. But I'm conservative. ;)
>
>Often, getting off your arse and starting to do something costs money for
>countries. Bureaucracies waste money, but how do we build a consensus?
Making the switch from filthy coal to clean nuclear would solve your
carbon/CO2 problem overnight. Nudging the liberal nuke haters on that
one would go far. Convincing the EPA and eco-terrorist groups that
small worldwide change versus drastic local change under the gun is
the better of the two tactics.
>> My assessment: 1) IPCC reports use "may" and "could" far too much.
>> Even they can't make solid predictions. And each report so far has
>> reduced the alarmist temperature rises by a degree or two. Besides,
>> that's not a scientific group, it's a political group. <sigh>
>
>see above
>
>> 2) Kyoto's net effect would be absolutely zero on the climate.
>
>see above
>
>> 3) C&T doesn't change behavior one iota, it just adds cost to dirty
>> business.
>
>If one adds a cost to do business as usual, maybe the free market can
>find a better way?
We need to get the gov't out of politics <titter> and politics out of
the market to allow free markets to do their jobs. They listen to the
people, and people are definitely changing without gov't interference.
>> How can any of this help, if that were possible?
>
>If people do not want to change, the consequences could (yes, that word)
>dire (alarmist alarm!!).
Yes, and the sky could fall (only on Manhattan) tomorrow. One just
never knows!
>This Irene, like Floyd a few years back has wreaked havoc here in Bergen
>and Passaic counties. This time also almost everywhere along the NE
>seaboard and in a large part of New England. It's a week since and
>flooding is still severe here for those affected directly (I live a mile
>or so away). Good thing I have another way to drive to EWR this morning
>...
>
>Whether or not the storms are getting more severe these last few years
>may still be open for debate, but hereabouts we have now had at least 3
>100-year floods in the last 3 years. Pity those who chose (that's the
>past tense, right?) to live in areas subject to flooding.
Yes, and yes. And please remember that changes (deforestation) in the
tropical rainforests affect us up here on the northern continent. But
that was yesterday's scapegoat. AGWK is today's monster. Yes, weather
changes and we can't forecast it properly yet. Build accordingly.
And if we can't predict the -week- ahead, what makes you think we can
possibly predict the century ahead any more precisely, hmm? Why do
Believers believe?
>Ridgewood is a rather rich suburb, and they chose to build in the flood
>plain of a small river/creek: <http://tinyurl.com/3pzgcfq> or
><http://fairlawn.patch.com/articles/irene-strikes-bergen-county#photo-
>7588002>
>Many schools will delay opening because they need to dry out and get
>decontaminated. Yes, stupid to build where they did, and stupid to not
>take precautions ...
Ridgewood doesn't deserve federal funds to pay for their own arrogant
stupidity. It seems that everyone just says "OK, go ahead and build
there. The insurance company and federal gov't will pay for new
buildings if there is any problem." We have to stop thinking and
acting that way.
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On Sep 3, 9:38=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 3:42=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
>
> > > There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor an=
d
> > > predict. =A0But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases i=
s a bit
> > > too strong to completely discount. =A0So in the absence of definitive=
proof
> > > that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
> > > climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
>
> > What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
> > explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
> > AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
> [...]
> Note that it=92s only conservatives in the US and to an extremely
> smaller extent in some Anglophone countries (UK and Canada) who deny
> the existence of global warming. The best explanation I have seen is
> that it=92s because of cognitive dissonance. Seehttp://wmperkins.blogspot=
.com/2010/06/global-warming-and-cognitive-di...
[...]
Boys, it isn't that complicated. The forces that want to cast doubt
on the scientifically proven phenomenon of global warming are
operating strictly on pragmatic (to them) financial motivation.
People's health and lives, even those of their own family, don't
count.
If the US govt and peoples of the world really try to stop global
warming before the tipping point,** the Big Corporate Polluters and
their behind-the-scenes financiers (like the Marshall Institute which
I repeatedly cite) fear that they may suffer economic damage, and that
their shareholders may desert them. So they make sophisticated and so
far successful efforts to confuse the public, even smart people.
So our choice is pathetically simple: Do something now, or it will be
too late.
If we do something, we may save ourselves.
If we keep listening to sophisticated, money-motivated propaganda, we
may wake up from our dream too late.
A command economy like China, e.g. can act -- though they have ****ed
up their environment perhaps beyond redemption.
But a democracy (really, now, a plutocracy), has a much harder row to
hoe, given the overweening power of Big Money to confuse the voters.
(and the lame executive supposed to be in charge!!!)
*** Some climate scientists warn that we may be past the tipping
point.
I just don't see it's that complicated. We the people do have the
power to influence events. Depends whether we can stop kidding
ourselves.
HB
On 9/2/2011 4:48 PM, Tom B wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>> AGW = anthropomorphic global warming, Leon. Anthropomorphic is a pretty
>> big word, I know, but you have the internet at your fingertips.
>
> How condescending of you.
>
>> Regarding scientific instruments, we (well, those of us who aren't so
>> idiotic as to believe god created the earth) know a hell of a lot about
> .the history of the planet, even the universe, just by using the tools
> .developed relatively recently.
>
>
> Hmm, let's see... if we remove the possibility of a Creator, all we have
> left to 'splain things is either a TON of physicists theories (SWAG's at
> things) or Magic!
>
> I wonder which gives the most hope?
> <snipped>
God does not exist in the minds of those that have limited understanding.
Apparently the earth and heavens just suddenly appeared from the big
bang. But limited understanding does not go back before was around
before the big bang.
On 9/3/2011 7:04 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han, what is your assessment of 1) the IPCC reports, 2) the Kyoto
>> Protocol/Treaty, and 3) Cap& Trade effects on climate?
>
> Political reports and tax policies that are difficult to enforce
> globally, to say the least? I think they may all not be more than points
> for discussion.
>
>> Zero net change at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars does not
>> make any of them good investments in my book. But I'm conservative. ;)
>
> Often, getting off your arse and starting to do something costs money for
> countries. Bureaucracies waste money, but how do we build a consensus?
>
>> My assessment: 1) IPCC reports use "may" and "could" far too much.
>> Even they can't make solid predictions. And each report so far has
>> reduced the alarmist temperature rises by a degree or two. Besides,
>> that's not a scientific group, it's a political group.<sigh>
>
> see above
>
>> 2) Kyoto's net effect would be absolutely zero on the climate.
>
> see above
>
>> 3) C&T doesn't change behavior one iota, it just adds cost to dirty
>> business.
>
> If one adds a cost to do business as usual, maybe the free market can
> find a better way?
>
>> How can any of this help, if that were possible?
>
> If people do not want to change, the consequences could (yes, that word)
> dire (alarmist alarm!!).
>
> This Irene, like Floyd a few years back has wreaked havoc here in Bergen
> and Passaic counties. This time also almost everywhere along the NE
> seaboard and in a large part of New England. It's a week since and
> flooding is still severe here for those affected directly (I live a mile
> or so away). Good thing I have another way to drive to EWR this morning
> ...
>
> Whether or not the storms are getting more severe these last few years
> may still be open for debate, but hereabouts we have now had at least 3
> 100-year floods in the last 3 years. Pity those who chose (that's the
> past tense, right?) to live in areas subject to flooding.
>
> Ridgewood is a rather rich suburb, and they chose to build in the flood
> plain of a small river/creek:<http://tinyurl.com/3pzgcfq> or
> <http://fairlawn.patch.com/articles/irene-strikes-bergen-county#photo-
> 7588002>
> Many schools will delay opening because they need to dry out and get
> decontaminated. Yes, stupid to build where they did, and stupid to not
> take precautions ...
It is pretty much a known fact that the more the population expands and
decreases run off areas the more there will be 100 year floods.
On 9/2/2011 5:42 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
>> "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
>> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>>
>>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>>> computer generated models
>>
>> There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
>> predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is a bit
>> too strong to completely discount. So in the absence of definitive proof
>> that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
>> climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
>
> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
> explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
> AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
>
> Most all other political/socioeconomic issues have a fairly obvious
> rationale behind the different thought process ... this one defies my
> ability to put a finger it.
>
> To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be ...
> but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to either a
> solution, or resignation. :)
>
All I know is that them more we try to clean up the environment the more
problems pop up. Hey they bought "this, lets see if we can sell this!
On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
> "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>> computer generated models
>
> There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
> predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is a bit
> too strong to completely discount. So in the absence of definitive proof
> that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
> climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
>
Bit stopping everyone from breathing is not the answer.
On 9/3/2011 10:27 AM, Tom B wrote:
>> <snipped>
>
> God does not exist in the minds of those that have limited understanding.
>
> Apparently the earth and heavens just suddenly appeared from the big
> bang. But limited understanding does not go back before was around
> before the big bang.
>
> "Let there be Light"... BANG!
Kinda stupid simple isn't it. ;~) Once you realize that you don't have
a perceived reasonable explanation to every thing, you can begin to
learn again.
WRECK only
On 02 Sep 2011 16:17:01 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer and
>Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the theory
>behind. Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for publication of
>this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the paper at the
>time he decided to publish it:
>
>"Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim
>is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer
>review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify
>fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many
>climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate
>pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and
>Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely
>problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
>After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro
>and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I
>would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a
>result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]"
>http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
All I can say is "OH, HORSESHIT, Wolfie! Good riddance."
P.S: A copy of Ian Pilmer's book, _Heaven and Earth: Global Warming,
the Missing Science_ is on its way to me. It contains 2300 footnotes
to peer-reviewed papers.
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/5/2011 10:18 AM, Twayne wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> typed:
> <[email protected]> typed:
>
> ...
>
>>>
>>> It won't be taken as "gospel" by any thnkng persons with
>>> open minds and a genuine interest in things other than
>>> demonstrating their egoes. Whenever anyones says "trust
>>> me" it's time to put the microscope on them. If they
>>> had any credibility they wouldn't have to beg for
>>> "trust". You're only one voice amongst a din of
>>> others with various positions. In fact, I have to wonder
>>> why you'd post this drivel here at all; there are better newsgroups for
>>> you to be heard in unless
>>> you've worn out your welcome there.
>>>
>>> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> Twayne`
>>>
>>>
>> You putz! I recommended in an earlier post that you
>> stick around for a few years to feel the group out before
>> making any recommendations as to who should go where to
>> post.
>
> You should read the RFCs about OT posts; it would appear you never have.
>
>> I suppose you were just itching to spew your thoughts
>> about some one asking you to trust them.
>
> "Trust me" is one of the first indicators a person has little to no
> verifiable information. It will affect your credibility every time.
>
>> If you don't stop trying to be the he-man protector of
>> this group you are going to find very quickly that your
>> words are going to fall on deaf ears. You can trust me
>> on that.
>
> I can trust you, eh? That's like another "trust me" comment. Thinking people
> don't write the kinds of posts you write. And if this bothered you all that
> much, your skin is way too thin for usenet; try the forums next time.
>
> I suspect, they way you don't know what you're talking about that I've been
> around a LOT longer than you have. Now, what was your woodworking post
> again? Ask mommy if you're confused; she's probably more knowledgeable than
> you are.
> If you don't like a post, don't read it. Or is that too hard for your
> lazy ass to comprehend?
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`
>
Hope you never have any thing worth while to say, PLONK!
>
On 9/4/2011 8:04 PM, Twayne wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Swingman<[email protected]> typed:
>> Next up on the agenda driven "science" of climate change:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> By "Harry"
>> Dear Dr Spencer,
>> As I have read at Dr Pielkes blog, a rebuttal of your
>> paper by Dessler will be published next week in GRL.
>>
>> What amazes me is how fast this rebuttal is being peer
>> reviewed and accepted and how unusual this is: a rebuttal
>> should have been published by comment to your paper in
>> Remote Sensing, not by a CAGW friendly journal like GRL.
>>
>> The team seems to be under large pressure, possibly by
>> the AR5 community?
>> </quote>
>>
>> Politicized "science" as usual ... just wanted you to
>> know, in advance, where the next "Global warming deniers
>> debunked" headline is coming from.
>> Trust me, it will be posted here as GOSPEL "quicker than
>> you can say Jack Robinson".
>
> It won't be taken as "gospel" by any thnkng persons with open minds and a
> genuine interest in things other than demonstrating their egoes. Whenever
> anyones says "trust me" it's time to put the microscope on them.
> If they had any credibility they wouldn't have to beg for "trust". You're
> only one voice amongst a din of others with various positions.
> In fact, I have to wonder why you'd post this drivel here at all; there
> are better newsgroups for you to be heard in unless you've worn out your
> welcome there.
>
> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`
>
>
You putz! I recommended in an earlier post that you stick around for a
few years to feel the group out before making any recommendations as to
who should go where to post.
I suppose you were just itching to spew your thoughts about some one
asking you to trust them.
If you don't stop trying to be the he-man protector of this group you
are going to find very quickly that your words are going to fall on deaf
ears. You can trust me on that.
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:44:18 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 2, 3:11 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> Now, on to more important stuff: http://goo.gl/xAANu
>>
>> (Be Careful! Dump is like Wimp: an addictive timesucker.)
>
>Where is the "Like" button on Usenet? :-)
I just received it, WeeGee. Danke mucho, monsieur.
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/2/2011 2:18 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <[email protected]>,
>>> Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>>>
>>> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
>>> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
>>> is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>>
>> Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
>> over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back to
>> the ice age.
>
> AGW = anthropomorphic global warming, Leon. Anthropomorphic is a pretty
> big word, I know, but you have the internet at your fingertips.
>
> Regarding scientific instruments, we (well, those of us who aren't so
> idiotic as to believe god created the earth) know a hell of a lot about
> the history of the planet, even the universe, just by using the tools
> developed relatively recently.
Good God you are short sighted and quite arrogant!
On 9/2/2011 10:49 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 02 Sep 2011 23:20:47 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> You're a better man than me, Han ... I have a hard time believing any of
>>> them. But I do have a pretty well honed sense of BS when I see it, I the
>>> AGW folks have plenty of that themselves.
>>
>> Idon't /know/ Karl. Just seems to me that the combinatrion of far too many
>> humans farting, and their cows ditto, plus the CO2 could well do something
>> to the climate over a period of many tens of years that ultimately will
>> screw things up. I aklso dislike the idea of a warmer ocean putting more
>> water vapor into the air, and water is also a greenhouse gas. Whether that
>> feed-forward system can be controlled is really the big question IMHO!
>
> Please note that Mother Nature/Gaia does her own things to cool
> herself off or warm herself up as she sees fit. We're a grain of salt
> on a blue whale's arse in all of that, but when she sees fit, she'll
> adjust, just as she always does. The planet is self-regulating and
> we're just along for the ride.
>
Could not agree more. If it were not global warming it would be
something else that people would be worried about.
On 9/2/2011 5:05 PM, Han wrote:
> Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:540e041f-2269-4612-803d-6a48a72c699b@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sep 2, 12:33 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer
>>>> and Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the
>>>> theory behind. Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for
>>>> publicati
>> on of
>>>> this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the
>>>> paper at
>> the
>>>> time he decided to publish it:
>>>
>>>> "Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science.
>>>> Their
>> aim
>>>> is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a
>>>> rigorous p
>> eer
>>>> review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to
>>>> identi
>> fy
>>>> fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately,
>>>> as ma
>> ny
>>>> climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change
>>>> debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper
>>>> by Spencer a
>> nd
>>>> Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most
>>>> like
>> ly
>>>> problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been
>>>> publishe
>> d.
>>>> After having become aware of the situation, and studying the
>>>> various pr
>> o
>>>> and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper.
>>>> Therefore,
>> I
>>>> would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision
>>>> and,
>> as a
>>>> result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
>>>> [..
>> .]"
>>>> http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>>>
>>> I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's been
>>> going on since the ice age. Ant then there is that season that
>>> immediately follows winter every year.
>>>
>>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
>>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
>>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
>>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
>>> any type of accurate predictio
>> n.
>>>
>>> What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
>>>
>>> a. It became a politically popular topic.
>>> b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory".
>>> c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought
>>> global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought
>>> i
>> n
>>> any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
>>
>> Anybody lives close to Leon? Buy that man as many draught beers as
>> he's likely to consume in a sitting and send me the bill.
>>
>> Because that is SPOT on.....
>
> Sorry, nonsense. With all due respect for both Leon and Rob, all
> available data indicates that manmade greenhouse gases contribute to the
> warming of the earth, globally and averaged, over sites and time (i.e. 3-
> dimensional averaging and drawing a line that is an average of several
> years, following that with time. The fatc that global warming has
> happened since the last iceage is correct and irrelevant. The
> superimposition of the manmade components has added an order or two of
> magnitude to the rate of increasing temperature. We can fight and
> discuss all we want, the proof of the hotsoup will be there in another
> 35, 50 or 100 years. But then my teeth won't hurt me no more, and it
> will be a problem for the Chinese or the Arabs (no discriminatory intent,
> just a semi-educated guess at who will be in power by then, the US having
> selfdestructed much, much faster than the Romans).
>
"If" the earth is becoming warmer because of man, it is because the
atmosphere has been cleaned up enough that more sun light is reaching
the earth. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:05:33 -0400, Frank
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/2/2011 2:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <[email protected]>,
>>> Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>>>
>>> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
>>> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
>>> is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>>
>> Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
>> over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back to
>> the ice age.
>>
>>>
>>> Back in the day, the White House had science advisors who helped shaped
>>> policy. A certain recent retard in the White House dictated policy
>>> first, and told his "advisors" to conform to it or be fired.
>>
>> Now be nice to Carter.
>>
>
>I advise people to read Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear".
>Environmentalists decry it but it shows the mentality of global warning.
Precisely. Then read all the books in the biblio to get the facts
firsthand. One can't read all that and still be a Believer.
>I spent enough time in academia or academic environments to know the
>mentality of these people. The fact that they are maybe 90% liberal may
>be an underestimation. It is also where you find most of your
>climatologists. If someone doesn't think that their science is tainted
>by their political views, they must be in La La land ;)
At least they have East Anglia to peer them, eh? <wink, wink>
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/3/2011 11:38 AM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> On Sep 2, 3:42 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
>>> predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is a bit
>>> too strong to completely discount. So in the absence of definitive proof
>>> that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
>>> climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
>>
>> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
>> explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
>> AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
>>
>> Most all other political/socioeconomic issues have a fairly obvious
>> rationale behind the different thought process ... this one defies my
>> ability to put a finger it.
>>
>> To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be ...
>> but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to either a
>> solution, or resignation. :)
>
> Note that its only conservatives in the US and to an extremely
> smaller extent in some Anglophone countries (UK and Canada) who deny
> the existence of global warming.
Anyone who denies the existence of "global warming" is fool who only has
to look out a window to be proven wrong.
IOW, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by not barking up the
wrong tree.
Now that that's out of the way, go back and see the question was about
"AGW", not "denying" global warming
The question remains without a satisfactory answer as to why political
persuasion plays such a big part, despite a couple of attempts to
address it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Luigi Zanasi wrote:
>
> One shouldn't deny facts, but one can disagree about their
> explanation. Given that global warming is happening, the question is
> then what hypothesis about its cause we should accept: is it
> greenhouse gases or are there other causes. For now it seems that
> greenhouse gases are the best explanation for the recent acceleration
> in temperatures. Solar radiation? Maybe, but no real evidence yet.
> Natural trends? Ok, maybe, but that is just begging the question: what
> is causing that natural trend?
>
This is where the AGW proponents go off the rails. It is of only academic
interest exactly WHAT is causing the warming, there is NOTHING that can
reasonably be done to mitigate it. Proposals to limit greenhouse gasses, use
renewable resources, and the like will have a miniscule effect on GW while
reducing civilization to a hunter-gatherer society. Or at least cause our
Netflix subscriptions to increase again.
Brain power could be put to better use by suggesting ways to deal with the
(possible) effects of global warming (pre-fab dikes around coastal cities,
heat-resistant crops, more efficient air conditioning, etc.).
Unless, of course, the same people who promote the notion of AGW are also
Luddites. For example, has ANY AGW proponent calculated how many trees need
to be planted to act as sufficient carbon sinks, thereby offsetting the
industrial age? How many, you say? None?
Well, there you are.
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Are you not aware that white ice -- glaciers, snowpack, etc. REFLECTS
>certain wavelengths of sunlight such as infra-red.
>But now that the ice and snow are melting at unprecedented historical
>rates, due largely to CO2 entering the atmosphere in huge quantities,
>the oceans are a beautiful dark blue -- which ABSORBS infra-red
>radiation, aka heat.
You're wasting your breath. There's a certain arrogance attached to
the bulk of the population in developed countries that states they can
do no wrong.
Hell, the gulf oil disaster is over. So, it never happened right? Or,
it's had a very minor effect on the ecosystem, right? *That* arrogance
is widespread and pervasive. The current population will be long dead
by the time any real effect will be felt, so why worry about it?
On 9/2/2011 2:50 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>,
>> Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>>
>> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
>> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
>> is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>
> Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
> over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back to
> the ice age.
>
>>
>> Back in the day, the White House had science advisors who helped shaped
>> policy. A certain recent retard in the White House dictated policy
>> first, and told his "advisors" to conform to it or be fired.
>
> Now be nice to Carter.
>
I advise people to read Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear".
Environmentalists decry it but it shows the mentality of global warning.
I spent enough time in academia or academic environments to know the
mentality of these people. The fact that they are maybe 90% liberal may
be an underestimation. It is also where you find most of your
climatologists. If someone doesn't think that their science is tainted
by their political views, they must be in La La land ;)
On 9/2/2011 5:42 PM, Swingman wrote:
...
> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
> explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
> AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
...
Because the progressives are using GW as pretext to implement cap and
trade legislation as well as other global initiatives that give up US
sovereign unilateral control (as many see it).
--
On 9/2/2011 7:51 PM, Han wrote:
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Because the progressives are using GW as pretext to implement cap and
>> trade legislation as well as other global initiatives that give up US
>> sovereign unilateral control (as many see it).
>
> I have looked at cap and trade as a way to let the market place put a price
> on "pollution"....
Excepting, of course, it isn't a market force that's trying to place it
there, it's a legislative body.
--
On 9/2/2011 7:29 PM, Han wrote:
...
> regarding climate change, I can't understand the reasoning, since I
> believe the arguments are based on misconceptions. But ... time WILL
> tell.
That's what I think is wrong w/ the "science" of AGW--it's made to fit
the preconception of it being so and woe to any who (at least at this
point in time) dares think differently.
--
If the free market wanted cap and tax, we'd have had it 100
plus years ago.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 9/2/2011 7:51 PM, Han wrote:
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> I have looked at cap and trade as a way to let the market
> place put a price
> on "pollution"....
Excepting, of course, it isn't a market force that's trying
to place it
there, it's a legislative body.
On 9/2/2011 4:29 PM, DGDevin wrote:
If scientists haven't
> studied climate changes throughout and prior to human history, how come
> you can go down to the library and read books about them doing exactly
> that? If as Leon claims scientists haven't looked at climate past 200
> years, how they they do things like this?
The problem is when they look back over time, and what they find doesn't
jive with what they need to say to either get government money, sell
windmills, keep their job at a communist university or meet their
anti-capitalist agenda, then they LIE. This is not so much common sense
as simple, proven fact.
> Seriously, when did ignorance become the preferred state for so many
> people?
Yeah, at least you got the question right.
--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ======> Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com
On 9/2/2011 5:35 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
> computer generated models
Well they can, but first they need to re-position their sensors, or just
ignore data that doesn't fit. In other words, lie.
--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ======> Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com
On 9/2/2011 8:29 PM, Han wrote:
> Wrong, Karl, so sorry. Yes there are different premises, and different
> philosophies, but like conservatives as you call them (used to be a far
> dirtier concept back in Holland in the 60s than liberal is here now)
Liberal was usurped by the left wing socialist bastards, and now means
someone that hates individual freedom, believes the individual is stupid
and needs controlled and directed by a strong, centralized government
(socialist), or, as G.W Shaw, and Hitler thought, needs gassed.
> I would like liberty and opportunity for all, and no free ride for lazy
> people. But help for truly needy is "good" in my opinion.
So you are a conservative. I suspected you had some socially redeeming
value:-)
>> To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be
>> ...but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to
>> either asolution, or resignation. :)
>
> Yes time will tell, and I do believe that tolerance and respect for
> opposing views is important.
Why have tolerance for liars and crooks? Gore, inventor of all things
stupid, recently bloviated about the need to "win the conversation".
Science is not a conversation, it is fact based, with verifiable proof.
So far, the only proof I see is that Gore and his left wing government
funded buddies are a bunch of money grubbing liars with no socially
redeeming value...
> But while I respect your opposing view
> regarding climate change, I can't understand the reasoning, since I
> believe the arguments are based on misconceptions.
You can call them misconceptions, but I call them blatant lies. One lie
is enough to make me suspicious, but a bunch of lies by both the
"scientists" and idiots like AlGore is all I need to dismiss the lot of
them.
--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ======> Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com
On 9/2/2011 9:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> When the US was the biggest emitter and everybody could benefit by
> making the US pay penalties for that situation "cap and trade" seemed
> wonderful to the UN.
The US is probably the lowest "emitter" based on productivity.
Capitalism is so good that they can afford to implement pollution
solutions.
> Now that a country that isn't wealthy and doesn't
> really give a crap what the UN likes is the biggest emitter it's a
> different ball game.
Translated, as capitalism disappears, and socialism takes over, the
inefficient, incompetent sorry ass socialists can't afford to clean
things up, and cows will be farting everywhere...
> If you want to end greenhouse emissions you're going to have to force
> China to cooperate. World's largest army, more men fit for military
> service than the entire population of the US, and they have nukes. You
> do the math.
The problem with China is they mandated killing all their female
socialist bastards early on, so now they have too many horny men, and
will eventually send a shitload of them over here to be killed.
Unfortunately, most of the American men have been feminized, de-armed,
and only know how to cook. I suggest covering your ass, the men are
coming...
--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ======> Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com
On 9/2/2011 11:21 PM, zxcvbob wrote:
> There are so many good reasons to conserve and to develop alternative
> energy source (including national security for the Republicans) there's
> no need to make up a bullshit reason -- except Al Gore and his buddies
> are trying to get rich off of it.
Rarely to never do "good reasons" to do something need government
meddling to get implemented.
--
Jack
QUINNs FIRST LAW: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its
stated intent.
http://jbstein.com
In this case, "we" means the elected ruling class.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:j3s7ja
[email protected]:
> If the free market wanted cap and tax, we'd have had it
> 100
> plus years ago.
Tax policies have always involved stimulating what we want
and punishing
what we don't. I see no difference here. Cap and trade,
oil depletion
allowances, I won't pretend I understand the intricacies,
but I get the
idea.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 9/3/2011 8:05 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 5:05 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>
>>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>>> computer generated models
>>
>> And we can't use computer generated models to forecast tax receipts, the
>> economy, or even the Super Bowl winner. Most systems are too complex to
>> be modeled accurately, but that never stops anyone from trying and
>> pretending the models actually mean something.
>>
>
> Precisely, until the models become accurate they remain assumptions.
Yesterday the weather experts said it would hit 91° here. Only made it
to 82° on my weather stations. So much for their models:-). I've seen
them lie about the 90° mark almost as much as the amount of snow we get.
Not sure if it's just the lying, sensationalist, news media or what,
but I know the f**ker's are lying.
--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =====> Convenient Lies!
http://jbstein.com
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
SNIP
>>Thirty years ago, James Hansen and other scientists laid out the whole
>>scenario. Being played out, act by act.
>
> Except they were predicting dire global COOLING back then.
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Global Epic Fail.
>
> Thanks for playing!
>
Citation;
"Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st
century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers
predicted future warming."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
AFAIAC less pollution can not be a bad thing. When I ride my roadbike in
heavy traffic it is harder to catch my breath. When I ride in an area where
there are a lot of trees, I feel a lot of difference in the air quality and
my performance. The global warming deniers are the one who accuse the people
who are concerned of being extremist or eco-terrorist. Well whatever you
believe, I say we should make an effort to reduce the damn pollution.
The dust particules I breathed for so many years because my employer was
more concern about sucking up more money instead of installing decent dust
collector now have an impact on my lungs.
Pin
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:43:36 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
> Yesterday the weather experts said it would hit 91° here. Only made it
> to 82° on my weather stations. So much for their models:-). I've seen
> them lie about the 90° mark almost as much as the amount of snow we get.
Another one who confuses weather with climate is heard from.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:42:00 -0500, Swingman wrote:
> What I really would like some smart person to do is give me a rational
> explanation as to why the progressive mindset is so willing to embrace
> AGW, and why the conservative mindset is the polar opposite.
You're asking for a rational explanation of human behavior? Lotsa' luck
Jack!
It's what happens with any issue that will cost somebody money.
A. Science comes out with some prediction that we need to do something
about a problem.
B. A group determines the solution will cost them money and starts a
propaganda campaign to prevent that.
C. Some political group believes the propaganda (or is paid to believe
it) and start writing letters to the editor and fulminating on talk shows
and in Congress (or the local equivalent).
D. Their political opponents immediately take the opposite position.
Usually, nobody on either side has taken time to determine if the
original prediction was true or false or somewhere in between.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:19:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> The "logic" problem is that when the
> data is graphed, in each of those cycles, temperature begins to rise for
> a few hundred to about 1500 years BEFORE CO2 increases.
That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer-
reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so, I'd
like to read it.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:20:12 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Haters of the US can't bring themselves to call us "Americans". Nothing
>> new.
>
>One doesn't have to be a "hater" to note that there's a lot of North and
>South America that isn't the US.
Bullshit. North and South America are not political entities. There is no
such thing as citizenship of North America. Just use the accepted names. Only
a hater would go out of their way to, well, hate.
>Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., all call themselves by
>their country name. Only US citizens have enough chutzpah to appropriate
>the name of two continents for themselves.
Is "America" part of the name? Perhaps you want to use
"UnitedStatesofAmerican"?
>OTOH, it's really difficult to come up with a reasonable name using "US"
>as the root - "I'm a USer" definitely gives the wrong impression :-).
Then cut the bullshit.
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 07:53:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
> I think a better tack is to cause
> behavioral change in the worst offenders, not limiting anything. Also,
> how can we change the cost of nuclear power so it can compete with that
> nasty coal?
I think I've said this before, but I used to be a great supporter of
nuclear energy. Then I did some software work at a nuclear power plant.
Changed my mind completely. The people working that plant would shake
anyone's belief in their competence. Incompetence = accidents. Not to
mention little things like earthquakes and tidal waves.
I don't know the answers, but my hope is that some combination of wind
and solar can be made to work. But we're a long way from that today.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 9/3/2011 12:43 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:43:36 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Yesterday the weather experts said it would hit 91° here. Only made it
>> to 82° on my weather stations. So much for their models:-). I've seen
>> them lie about the 90° mark almost as much as the amount of snow we get.
>
> Another one who confuses weather with climate is heard from.
Hardly! My issue was not weather change, climate change, global
warming, local cooling. My issue was they can't tell you what the
temperature is going to be tomorrow, they blatantly lie about the amount
of snow we get, even when people can look out the window and see for
themselves, and they want us to believe their funky man made global
warming garbage. They can't even figure out if we are in a warming or
cooling climate phase. Twas only a few years back the same dickheads
were going on and on about global cooling...
Hockey stick my ass!
--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =====> Convenient Lies!
http://jbstein.com
On 9/2/2011 11:41 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Except they were predicting dire global COOLING back then.
Notaproblemo grasshopper. They have graduated to "climate change".
Yes, that's the ticket.
All hand wringers can unlax, and carry on!
--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =====> Convenient Lies!
http://jbstein.com
On 9/3/2011 10:47 AM, Leon wrote:
> "If" the earth is becoming warmer because of man, it is because the
> atmosphere has been cleaned up enough that more sun light is reaching
> the earth. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 9/3/2011 10:52 AM, Leon wrote:
> Could not agree more. If it were not global warming it would be
> something else that people would be worried about.
Probably second hand smoke, Big Mac Meals, butter, salt, coffee... No
wait, coffee is OK, everything else is bad...
Plenty of stuff to wring your hands over...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Smitty Two wrote:
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>,
>> Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>>
>> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
>> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe
>> AGW is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>>
>
> First, I don't CARE what scientists "believe." I'm only interested in what
> they can prove.
>
>
> And there is a difference between scientists and politicians. Politicians
> look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate scientists.
You can not be serious, politicians are ruled by lobbies and their party.
You vote against your party and you may lose a lot.
>
> The climate scientists say "The earth is warming and mankind is (partly?
> mostly?) to blame. They then suggest some obvious consequences, i.e.,
> ocean levels rising.
>
> The politician says "Maybe." Then the politician looks at the obvious
> consequences. If we undertake heroic measures to mitigate the potential
> consequences forwarded by the climate scientists, we will end up living
> lives that are painful, brutal, and short as a significant portion of the
> world's GDP is either erradicated or diverted because of the threat.
>
> If, however, we allow the consequences feared by the climate scientists to
> take place (assuming they do), the cost to minimize the downsides will be
> magnitudes less. Heck, there are even positive results that flow from GW.
> For instance, Canada can get three growing seasons for some crops (wheat)
> instead of the normal two,
It is three seasons only by the name since the winter wheat is harvested in
october which is in autumn. No way we get three seasons of growth, not even
two for vegetables. In fact there is little change. We still must plant most
vegetables in the middle or near the end of May and in September the season
is over.
>there are fewer deaths related to heat than cold, and so on.
Go tell this to the French in 2003.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
Pin
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
snip
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
On 9/6/2011 4:32 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 20:01:15 -0400, "m II"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> George Watson goes by hundreds of names and still lives here as a "valued"
>> poster under a few other names. You fucking troll wannabies just don't get
>> it, do you?
>
> Take some advise, paranoia isn't your friend. Seek some help.
Why would any one offering any valuable information post under multiple
names?
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 20:01:15 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>George Watson goes by hundreds of names and still lives here as a "valued"
>poster under a few other names. You fucking troll wannabies just don't get
>it, do you?
Take some advise, paranoia isn't your friend. Seek some help.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pin wrote:
>>
>> AFAIAC less pollution can not be a bad thing. When I ride my roadbike
>> in heavy traffic it is harder to catch my breath. When I ride in an
>> area where there are a lot of trees, I feel a lot of difference in
>> the air quality and my performance. The global warming deniers are
>> the one who accuse the people who are concerned of being extremist or
>> eco-terrorist. Well whatever you believe, I say we should make an
>> effort to reduce the damn pollution.
>
> Everybody's for less pollution. There's less pollution, of all kinds, than
> there was in, say, 1976. There's a LOT less pollution today than there was
> in 1850 London.
For sure.
>>
>> The dust particules I breathed for so many years because my employer
>> was more concern about sucking up more money instead of installing
>> decent dust collector now have an impact on my lungs.
>>
>
> Evidently you were more concerned with sucking up money from your employer
> than you were concerned about your health. Where's the difference?
When you are young .... but.... this guy obviously voted for Bush!
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pin wrote:
>>>
>>> And there is a difference between scientists and politicians.
>>> Politicians look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate
>>> scientists.
>>
>> You can not be serious, politicians are ruled by lobbies and their
>> party. You vote against your party and you may lose a lot.
>>
>
> Lobbyists are but one (although sometimes a primary) source of the
> information needed to make a rational decision. Lobbyists know more
> regarding a given situation than any politician can possibly dream about,
> and we often get really bad legislation because of the ABSENCE of
> lobbyists.
>
> I remember when the Clinton administration imposed a 10% "luxury" tax on
> yachts, figuring, I guess, that the rich would simply pay it and move on.
> They moved on all right - straight to the Bahamas and other yacht-building
> venues. Meanwhile, most of the small yacht builders in the U.S. went out
> of business. You see, the small yacht builders didn't have a lobbyist.
>
>
>
>>> If, however, we allow the consequences feared by the climate
>>> scientists to take place (assuming they do), the cost to minimize
>>> the downsides will be magnitudes less. Heck, there are even positive
>>> results that flow from GW. For instance, Canada can get three
>>> growing seasons for some crops (wheat) instead of the normal two,
>>
>> It is three seasons only by the name since the winter wheat is
>> harvested in october which is in autumn. No way we get three seasons
>> of growth, not even two for vegetables. In fact there is little
>> change. We still must plant most vegetables in the middle or near the
>> end of May and in September the season is over.
>
> Right. But suppose December and January turned out to be quite temperate.
>
>>
>>> there are fewer deaths related to heat than cold, and so on.
>>
>> Go tell this to the French in 2003.
>>
>
> A. The French are always outliers (or contrarians).
> B. Think Influenza and other respiratory infections.
Israel rules USA but I must be antisemite or a nazi.
Pin
In news:[email protected],
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> typed:
> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>> There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper
>> by Spencer and Braswell that criticized observations of
>> global warming and the theory behind. Now the editor of
>> "Remote Sensing" responsible for publication of this
>> paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of
>> the paper at the time he decided to publish it: "Abstract: Peer-reviewed
>> journals are a pillar of modern
>> science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific
>> standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that
>> is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to
>> identify fundamental methodological errors or false
>> claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and
>> engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed
>> out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by
>> Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in
>> Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both
>> aspects and should therefore not have been published.
>> After having become aware of the situation, and studying
>> the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the
>> critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take
>> the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a
>> result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal
>> Remote Sensing. [...]"
>> http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/
>
>
> I think it is pretty obvious that there is global
> warming, it's been going on since the ice age. Ant then there is that
> season that immediately follows winter every year.
>
> What the real confusion here is that global warming
> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does
> not include enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or
> the others. Two
> hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
> any type of accurate prediction.
> What I find funny is that global warming was not a
> problem until
> a. It became a politically popular topic.
> b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the
> "theory". c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment
> has brought global warming to the light of day. Global
> warming was not a thought in any ones mind prior to laws
> being passed to clean up the environment.
Nor is any report, from any ONE or even a small number of sources, proof of
anything. If there was a clear answer, there would not be the controversey
there is. Think while readng those artcles about what information they DON"T
account for or dismiss without consideration!
HTH,
Twayne`
On 9/3/2011 6:09 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Brain power could be put to better use
The hand wringers should stick to what they do best, watching reruns of
law and order, and dancing with the stars.
by suggesting ways to deal with the (possible) effects of global warming
(pre-fab dikes around coastal cities,
Personally, a few fewer coastal cities works for me.
> heat-resistant crops,
No need, just grow them a bit father north, but stay away from the
coastal cities.
more efficient air conditioning,
No need. More warming causes more evaporation which results in more
rain which results in more and cheaper hydroelectric power. A vicious
cycle that really pisses off the hand wringers.
etc.).
Yes, more etc. is needed.
> Unless, of course, the same people who promote the notion of AGW are also
> Luddites. For example, has ANY AGW proponent calculated how many trees need
> to be planted to act as sufficient carbon sinks, thereby offsetting the
> industrial age? How many, you say? None?
Well, when not watching dancing with the stars, they sometimes drive
spikes into trees. Does that count for anything?
--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ======> Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com
On 9/4/2011 7:47 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> I remember when the Clinton administration imposed a 10% "luxury" tax on
> yachts, figuring, I guess, that the rich would simply pay it and move on.
> They moved on all right - straight to the Bahamas and other yacht-building
> venues. Meanwhile, most of the small yacht builders in the U.S. went out of
> business. You see, the small yacht builders didn't have a lobbyist.
QUINNs FIRST LAW: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its
stated intent.
--
Jack
Got Change: Trickle up Poverty!
http://jbstein.com
In news:[email protected],
Swingman <[email protected]> typed:
> Next up on the agenda driven "science" of climate change:
>
> <quote>
>
> By "Harry"
> Dear Dr Spencer,
> As I have read at Dr Pielkes blog, a rebuttal of your
> paper by Dessler will be published next week in GRL.
>
> What amazes me is how fast this rebuttal is being peer
> reviewed and accepted and how unusual this is: a rebuttal
> should have been published by comment to your paper in
> Remote Sensing, not by a CAGW friendly journal like GRL.
>
> The team seems to be under large pressure, possibly by
> the AR5 community?
> </quote>
>
> Politicized "science" as usual ... just wanted you to
> know, in advance, where the next "Global warming deniers
> debunked" headline is coming from.
> Trust me, it will be posted here as GOSPEL "quicker than
> you can say Jack Robinson".
It won't be taken as "gospel" by any thnkng persons with open minds and a
genuine interest in things other than demonstrating their egoes. Whenever
anyones says "trust me" it's time to put the microscope on them.
If they had any credibility they wouldn't have to beg for "trust". You're
only one voice amongst a din of others with various positions.
In fact, I have to wonder why you'd post this drivel here at all; there
are better newsgroups for you to be heard in unless you've worn out your
welcome there.
What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
HTH,
Twayne`
In news:[email protected],
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> typed:
<[email protected]> typed:
...
>>
>> It won't be taken as "gospel" by any thnkng persons with
>> open minds and a genuine interest in things other than
>> demonstrating their egoes. Whenever anyones says "trust
>> me" it's time to put the microscope on them. If they
>> had any credibility they wouldn't have to beg for
>> "trust". You're only one voice amongst a din of
>> others with various positions. In fact, I have to wonder
>> why you'd post this drivel here at all; there are better newsgroups for
>> you to be heard in unless
>> you've worn out your welcome there.
>>
>> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Twayne`
>>
>>
> You putz! I recommended in an earlier post that you
> stick around for a few years to feel the group out before
> making any recommendations as to who should go where to
> post.
You should read the RFCs about OT posts; it would appear you never have.
> I suppose you were just itching to spew your thoughts
> about some one asking you to trust them.
"Trust me" is one of the first indicators a person has little to no
verifiable information. It will affect your credibility every time.
> If you don't stop trying to be the he-man protector of
> this group you are going to find very quickly that your
> words are going to fall on deaf ears. You can trust me
> on that.
I can trust you, eh? That's like another "trust me" comment. Thinking people
don't write the kinds of posts you write. And if this bothered you all that
much, your skin is way too thin for usenet; try the forums next time.
I suspect, they way you don't know what you're talking about that I've been
around a LOT longer than you have. Now, what was your woodworking post
again? Ask mommy if you're confused; she's probably more knowledgeable than
you are.
If you don't like a post, don't read it. Or is that too hard for your
lazy ass to comprehend?
HTH,
Twayne`
In news:4245e6d6-fb9a-4e71-a901-cffe6a138328@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com,
Robatoy <[email protected]> typed:
> On Sep 5, 11:18 am, "Twayne" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Innews:[email protected],
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> typed:
>> <[email protected]> typed:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> It won't be taken as "gospel" by any thnkng persons
>>>> with
>>>> open minds and a genuine interest in things other than
>>>> demonstrating their egoes. Whenever anyones says "trust
>>>> me" it's time to put the microscope on them. If
>>>> they
>>>> had any credibility they wouldn't have to beg for
>>>> "trust". You're only one voice amongst a din of
>>>> others with various positions. In fact, I have to
>>>> wonder
>>>> why you'd post this drivel here at all; there are
>>>> better newsgroups for you to be heard in unless
>>>> you've worn out your welcome there.
>>
>>>> What's your woodworkiing question/response swing?
>>
>>>> HTH,
>>
>>>> Twayne`
>>
>>> You putz! I recommended in an earlier post that you
>>> stick around for a few years to feel the group out
>>> before making any recommendations as to who should go
>>> where to post.
>>
>> You should read the RFCs about OT posts; it would appear
>> you never have.
>>
>>> I suppose you were just itching to spew your thoughts
>>> about some one asking you to trust them.
>>
>> "Trust me" is one of the first indicators a person has
>> little to no verifiable information. It will affect your
>> credibility every time.
>>
>>> If you don't stop trying to be the he-man protector of
>>> this group you are going to find very quickly that your
>>> words are going to fall on deaf ears. You can trust me
>>> on that.
>>
>> I can trust you, eh? That's like another "trust me"
>> comment. Thinking people don't write the kinds of posts
>> you write. And if this bothered you all that much, your
>> skin is way too thin for usenet; try the forums next
>> time.
>>
>> I suspect, they way you don't know what you're talking
>> about that I've been around a LOT longer than you have.
>> Now, what was your woodworking post again? Ask mommy if
>> you're confused; she's probably more knowledgeable than
>> you are. If you don't like a post, don't read it. Or
>> is that too hard for your
>> lazy ass to comprehend?
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Twayne`
>
> Yup... grade # 1 asshole. Buhbyes 'Twayne'. Guys that get
> their jollies pissing people off have a very short
> lifespan...at least around here.
If it pisses you off, like I sad before, you don't belong here. It
shouldn't, and you know little of what you're doing/saying.
I've no wish to join your little troll-fest here which seems to be all
that's on your mind, nor to read any further of your posts in this thread.
See you in the Sunday papers.
The Noah weather radio says Noah, that's not possible. And,
he should Noah.
Noah what I mean?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Kurt Ullman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In the meantime our town (Fair Lawn, NJ) is preparing for
> another flooding
> after the horrendous Irene flooding less than 2 weeks ago.
Global flooding?? (grin)
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:53:10 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 9/4/2011 8:04 PM, Twayne wrote crap:
>Filters are your friend.
Could filter him sure, but reading the messages from self important
people is occasionally enjoyable. Add to that some of the crap he
posts, then it gets hilarious pretty quick.
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Pin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And there is a difference between scientists and politicians.
>>>> Politicians look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate
>>>> scientists.
>>>
>>> You can not be serious, politicians are ruled by lobbies and their
>>> party. You vote against your party and you may lose a lot.
>>>
>>
>> Lobbyists are but one (although sometimes a primary) source of the
>> information needed to make a rational decision. Lobbyists know more
>> regarding a given situation than any politician can possibly dream
>> about, and we often get really bad legislation because of the
>> ABSENCE of lobbyists.
>>
>> I remember when the Clinton administration imposed a 10% "luxury"
>> tax on yachts, figuring, I guess, that the rich would simply pay it
>> and move on. They moved on all right - straight to the Bahamas and
>> other yacht-building venues. Meanwhile, most of the small yacht
>> builders in the U.S. went out of business. You see, the small yacht
>> builders didn't have a lobbyist.
>
> Actually that was Mister "Read My Lips No New Taxes". The "luxury tax
> on yachts" was passed and signed into law and went into force in 1991.
> Clinton took office in 1993.
Ah, you're right. It was under the Clinton administration that the "luxury"
tax was repealed. By then, however, the yacht-building industry had all but
disappeared.
The point was, however, that the boat builders lacked lobbyists to explain
the consequences of a "soak the rich" taxation scheme.
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:44:56 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/2/2011 8:29 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> Wrong, Karl, so sorry. Yes there are different premises, and different
>> philosophies, but like conservatives as you call them (used to be a far
>> dirtier concept back in Holland in the 60s than liberal is here now)
>
>Liberal was usurped by the left wing socialist bastards, and now means
>someone that hates individual freedom, believes the individual is stupid
>and needs controlled and directed by a strong, centralized government
>(socialist), or, as G.W Shaw, and Hitler thought, needs gassed.
Before that "liberal" meant basically what "conservative" means now. The
founding of the US was quite a "liberal" undertaking.
>> I would like liberty and opportunity for all, and no free ride for lazy
>> people. But help for truly needy is "good" in my opinion.
>
>So you are a conservative. I suspected you had some socially redeeming
>value:-)
>
>>> To hell with the arguments, time will tell and what will be, will be
>>> ...but answer that one for me and I believe we'd be on the road to
>>> either asolution, or resignation. :)
>>
>> Yes time will tell, and I do believe that tolerance and respect for
>> opposing views is important.
>
>Why have tolerance for liars and crooks? Gore, inventor of all things
>stupid, recently bloviated about the need to "win the conversation".
>Science is not a conversation, it is fact based, with verifiable proof.
>So far, the only proof I see is that Gore and his left wing government
>funded buddies are a bunch of money grubbing liars with no socially
>redeeming value...
No, AGW is purely political. Think of the entire subject in that light and it
all makes sense. Got debt? Raise taxes. Got low grades. Raise taxes. Got
poverty? Raise taxes. Got warming? Raise taxes. There is a common thread
here.
>> But while I respect your opposing view
>> regarding climate change, I can't understand the reasoning, since I
>> believe the arguments are based on misconceptions.
>
>You can call them misconceptions, but I call them blatant lies. One lie
>is enough to make me suspicious, but a bunch of lies by both the
>"scientists" and idiots like AlGore is all I need to dismiss the lot of
>them.
I would say they're leeches, but really politicians and the AGW "scientists"
are quite symbiotic.
On 9/4/2011 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
> "woodstuff"<[email protected]> wrote in news:j3ump6$dif$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> snip
>>
>> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
>
> Seems to be Spencer's website. Believe him or not, I don't.
To scientific endeavor that is irrelevant, or should be.
So far there have been no peer reviewed papers offered in rebuttal to
prove the one under question is flawed, only opinion ... as above.
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 02 Sep 2011 23:20:47 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> You're a better man than me, Han ... I have a hard time believing any of
>> them. But I do have a pretty well honed sense of BS when I see it, I the
>> AGW folks have plenty of that themselves.
>
>Idon't /know/ Karl. Just seems to me that the combinatrion of far too many
>humans farting, and their cows ditto, plus the CO2 could well do something
>to the climate over a period of many tens of years that ultimately will
>screw things up. I aklso dislike the idea of a warmer ocean putting more
>water vapor into the air, and water is also a greenhouse gas. Whether that
>feed-forward system can be controlled is really the big question IMHO!
Please note that Mother Nature/Gaia does her own things to cool
herself off or warm herself up as she sees fit. We're a grain of salt
on a blue whale's arse in all of that, but when she sees fit, she'll
adjust, just as she always does. The planet is self-regulating and
we're just along for the ride.
Movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" and "An Inconvenient Truth" are
just fantasy and science -fiction-, guys. Remember the Brits' school
lawsuits over Algore's mess? http://goo.gl/PCWZz (scroll down to the
content, the site is funky)
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/2/2011 5:05 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> wrote:
>
>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>> computer generated models
>
> And we can't use computer generated models to forecast tax receipts, the
> economy, or even the Super Bowl winner. Most systems are too complex to
> be modeled accurately, but that never stops anyone from trying and
> pretending the models actually mean something.
>
Precisely, until the models become accurate they remain assumptions.
On 9/2/2011 3:29 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>>> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
>
>> Can you document that they have?
>
> Scientists can tell us what the climate was like thousands of years ago
> in parts of the world that today are deserts,
Correction, Scientists can tell us "what they think" the climate was
like thousands of years ago.
for example by the remains
> of the plants and animals that lived there including human beings who
> grew crops where today that would be impossible without irrigation. How
> do you suppose they do that without detailed records made with
> electronic instruments? Is it *really* so hard to figure out that they
> have other methods of determining such things? If scientists haven't
> studied climate changes throughout and prior to human history, how come
> you can go down to the library and read books about them doing exactly
> that? If as Leon claims scientists haven't looked at climate past 200
> years, how they they do things like this?
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/
>
> Gee--ice cores, growth rings in trees, sediments in oceans and lakes,
> preserved remains of plants and animals including those in human
> settlements--who could have guessed such things existed and have been
> used to study climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, what a
> revelation.
>
> Seriously, when did ignorance become the preferred state for so many
> people?
I could not tell you, when did gullibility be come so popular.
On 9/4/2011 4:17 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> That's precisely what I've been saying, but NOT what I've been seeing
>> ... here and elsewhere.
>>
>
> This just goes to show, one man's music is another man's "noise"! ; )
>
> I consider you a friend whether you like it or not..
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in news:j3s7ja
> [email protected]:
>
> > If the free market wanted cap and tax, we'd have had it 100
> > plus years ago.
>
> Tax policies have always involved stimulating what we want and punishing
> what we don't. I see no difference here. Cap and trade, oil depletion
> allowances, I won't pretend I understand the intricacies, but I get the
> idea.
So lets take a totally screwed up system and mess it up even further.
(g).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
In article <[email protected]>,
zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> They're not even calling it Global Warming anymore. That was last year.
> It's "climate change" now. (hedging their bets)
>
That alone give me cause for concern. I mean usually one changes the
name when the current one takes on a malodorous conatation in the minds
of Populace. Global Warming->Climate Change, Timeshare->interval
ownership, Liberal->Progressive. The list goes on.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> <
> In the meantime our town (Fair Lawn, NJ) is preparing for another flooding
> after the horrendous Irene flooding less than 2 weeks ago.
Global flooding?? (grin)
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
On 04 Sep 2011 12:30:17 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>I presume your phrase "best scenario for his country" means the USA.
Well, HeyBub's home base is the USA, but I might just as well have
been referring to the politicians of any country. Just possibly, the
politicans of a few countries maybe a little less self concerned, but
if there are some, I don't know which ones they are.
In article
<[email protected]>,
Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
Back in the day, the White House had science advisors who helped shaped
policy. A certain recent retard in the White House dictated policy
first, and told his "advisors" to conform to it or be fired.
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:39:37 -0400, aemeijers <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/3/2011 12:47 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/3/2011 10:27 AM, Tom B wrote:
>>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> God does not exist in the minds of those that have limited understanding.
>>>
>>> Apparently the earth and heavens just suddenly appeared from the big
>>> bang. But limited understanding does not go back before was around
>>> before the big bang.
>>>
>>> "Let there be Light"... BANG!
>>
>> Kinda stupid simple isn't it. ;~) Once you realize that you don't have a
>> perceived reasonable explanation to every thing, you can begin to learn
>> again.
>
>That is step one on the road to wisdom. The next steps are to realize
>there are questions you will never have answers to, and that for most of
>the questions, 'not knowing' won't make any difference in your life or
>your kid's life, so it is okay to file them away under 'damned if I
>know', and get on with more important things.
...and to realize that there are questions that make no sense (what came
before the big bang?, Who created God?). It's unknowable => 'damned if I
care'.
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> > Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
> >
> > Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
> > science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
> > is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>
> Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
> over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back to
> the ice age.
AGW = anthropomorphic global warming, Leon. Anthropomorphic is a pretty
big word, I know, but you have the internet at your fingertips.
Regarding scientific instruments, we (well, those of us who aren't so
idiotic as to believe god created the earth) know a hell of a lot about
the history of the planet, even the universe, just by using the tools
developed relatively recently.
>
> >
> > Back in the day, the White House had science advisors who helped shaped
> > policy. A certain recent retard in the White House dictated policy
> > first, and told his "advisors" to conform to it or be fired.
>
> Now be nice to Carter.
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The politician says "Maybe." Then the politician looks at the obvious
>> consequences. If we undertake heroic measures to mitigate the
>> potential consequences forwarded by the climate scientists, we will
>> end up living lives that are painful, brutal, and short as a
>> significant portion of the world's GDP is either erradicated or
>> diverted because of the threat.
>
> Just picking this paragraph for comment. You are going to believe
> politicians and disregard scientists' opinions?
No, but I'm not going to give them equal weight. The scientist has only his
data before him. He has NO knowledge of the secondary effects of his
studies, even if his studies are correct. The politician has input from ALL
the stakeholders and, as a result, has considerably more insight into the
consequences.
> As a scientist, I
> cannot respect such a view.
Of course. That's the parochial view I was illustrating.
> Politicians have especially recently
> proven to be more interested in (re-)election than in what is for the
> good of the country.
I somewhat agree, but in that regard they are no different than ALL climate
scientists in that their own well-being and reverence for their views, is,
ipso facto, the best thing that could happen to the country.
> Now I admit that some scientists might
> emphasize their opinions rather than competing ones, but that isn't
> the majority nor do I believe they ultimately will have the respect
> of their peers.
What climate scientists don't realize is that their opinions alone are not
dispositive. At best their opinions are only ONE factor in a much larger
equation. It is my view that the politician, due to the nature of his job,
must necessarily take a bigger view. Here's an example:
Recently the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a set of regulations
for (generally older) power plants. Further, that these regulations limiting
ozone and other pollutants must come into effect by December 31st of this
year. Thousands of lives would be saved, the EPA claimed.
The additional equipment necessary to retrofit some generating stations
takes years to design, manufacture, and install. There is no way some 11% of
Texas' power generating stations could meet that deadline. These plants
would have to be completely shut down.
One day last week, the Texas power grid hit 77 GW of generation. This is
perilously close to the current maximum of 80GW. If you take the 17 affected
power plants in the state off-line, that would mean rolling blackouts.*
Rolling blackouts result in people dying from the heat, factories shut down,
traffic signals don't work, and so on. A massive cost to society.
But that's what the "scientific experts" in the EPA recommended.
President Obama, a politician, saw the bigger picture and last Thursday
ordered the EPA to rescind the proposed regulations.
--------------------
* Regarding the "rolling blackouts," I sent a note to Governor Perry
outlining a proposed tactic should the EPA's rules necessitate power
interruptions. My plan would prioritize those who get their power cut off.
* All EPA offices in the state
* All military bases. Soldiers have generators, most citizens and businesses
do not.
* All federal courts. In the 1800's, courts met under trees on the
courthouse square. They could do it again.
* Various other federal facilities: Post offices, etc. Hey, the
letter-carriers trudge their rounds without A/C; the counter folks could do
likewise.
In other words, turnabout is only fair.
On 9/5/2011 7:05 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> Damn Larry I am aware of that. Hell if I was as intolerant as you I
>> would have filtered you long ago. ;~)
>
> Thank you.<titter>
>
> Is it intolerant to shield yourself from bozos, wear sunglasses, put
> on sunscreen, wear jackets, put on mosquito repellant or swat flies?
> Or are those simple protections against the irritants in life?
>
> P.S: If you were that tolerant, you wouldn't be whining to 'em all. ;)
;~)
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> The Noah weather radio says Noah, that's not possible. And,
> he should Noah.
>
> Noah what I mean?
>
Even Noah had his problems:
Lord: "Noah, my servant, why hast thou not finished the Ark which I
commanded thee to build?"
Noah: "Lord, my three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japeth have formed a rock band.
My wife of many years hath joined an awareness group. The gopher wood Thou
commandedest me to use won't be delivered until next Thursday!"
Lord: "What of the animals I commanded thee to gather, by pairs?"
Noah: "Lord, seventeen are endangered species and I am waiting for
government approval to move them. Oysters can be had only by dozens, and
water buffalos can not be had for love or money. I had a very unplesant
experience with a third monkey on the gangplank earlier in the week and
still bear great scars on my body.
"Lord, I am undone!"
Lord: "As am I. Why else do you think I planned this great flood?"
And after it rained for forty days and forty nights and the earth was
cover in floods, Texas got two-tenths.
Dave in Houston
"Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And after it rained for forty days and forty nights and the earth was
> cover in floods, Texas got two-tenths.
>
> Dave in Houston
How do you like the smoke in Houston from the fires to the North this
morning? Walked this dogs and walked back in smelling like A chimney and
the dogs had trouble breathing.
--
www.ewoodshop.com
On 03 Sep 2011 00:37:31 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think that in many people's views, the cost of not doing something
>about the greeenhouse effects is enormously greater (although later) then
>not doing something about it. For instance, if warming would increase
>the volume of the oceans, and then reduce land are on the planet, the
>surface of the oceans would increase to some extent, and hence the
>ability to evaporate more water, water vapor is a greeenhouse gas and
Aha, but water vapor can cool (clouds) as well as heat. Check your
stats there, sir. Effects depend upon distribution. This is another
area where we're pretty uninformed about our climate. It's too big to
measure and/or predict. So far, theories and models are incomplete
and quite unreliable.
>will cause further warming, etc, etc. The extent of land area inundated
>by the oceans in this way may not be all that great, but a very large
>percentage of peoples and businesses are on/in that land, in the US, and
>worldwide.
Han, what is your assessment of 1) the IPCC reports, 2) the Kyoto
Protocol/Treaty, and 3) Cap & Trade effects on climate?
Zero net change at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars does not
make any of them good investments in my book. But I'm conservative. ;)
My assessment: 1) IPCC reports use "may" and "could" far too much.
Even they can't make solid predictions. And each report so far has
reduced the alarmist temperature rises by a degree or two. Besides,
that's not a scientific group, it's a political group. <sigh>
2) Kyoto's net effect would be absolutely zero on the climate.
3) C&T doesn't change behavior one iota, it just adds cost to dirty
business.
How can any of this help, if that were possible?
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 08:13:55 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
>> "ChairMan"<nospam@nospam> wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
>> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>>
>>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>>> computer generated models
>>
>> There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
>> predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is a bit
>> too strong to completely discount. So in the absence of definitive proof
>> that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
>> climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
>>
>
>Bit stopping everyone from breathing is not the answer.
Rereading Han's last sentence today, I think a better tack is to cause
behavioral change in the worst offenders, not limiting anything. Also,
how can we change the cost of nuclear power so it can compete with
that nasty coal? "Clean coal" is an oxymoron and probably as
effective as cap and trade. Both are wastes of money, so use those
funds on worthwhile research.
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 02 Sep 2011 22:21:35 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
>@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
>> computer generated models
>
>There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
>predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is a bit
>too strong to completely discount. So in the absence of definitive proof
>that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
>climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
Absolutely, but tell them to try that within realistic boundaries,
please. Right now, the EPA, in its infinite wisdom, is trying to
limit 'bad things' to percentages so small they can't be measured in a
top-flight lab, let alone in the field. "0.000001 PPB" my ass, guys.
Have them start on COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS and cut the total output of
heat/gases from the human race in half in a day. (Coal no, nukes yes.)
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Smitty Two wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>
> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe
> AGW is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>
First, I don't CARE what scientists "believe." I'm only interested in what
they can prove.
And there is a difference between scientists and politicians. Politicians
look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate scientists.
The climate scientists say "The earth is warming and mankind is (partly?
mostly?) to blame. They then suggest some obvious consequences, i.e., ocean
levels rising.
The politician says "Maybe." Then the politician looks at the obvious
consequences. If we undertake heroic measures to mitigate the potential
consequences forwarded by the climate scientists, we will end up living
lives that are painful, brutal, and short as a significant portion of the
world's GDP is either erradicated or diverted because of the threat.
If, however, we allow the consequences feared by the climate scientists to
take place (assuming they do), the cost to minimize the downsides will be
magnitudes less. Heck, there are even positive results that flow from GW.
For instance, Canada can get three growing seasons for some crops (wheat)
instead of the normal two, there are fewer deaths related to heat than cold,
and so on.
On 2011-09-02, Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
> climatologists. If someone doesn't think that their science is tainted
> by their political views, they must be in La La land ;)
Kinda like anyone, regardless of political bent, who believes that
pumping ever increasing amts of unatural gases and chemicals into our
environment causes no adverse effects has warped waaaay beyond La La
land and has slammed smack-dab into drooling idiot.
If mankind, as a species, even exists in 50 yrs, I'd be amazed. Not
that I care. I'll be long dead by then. Have a nice day! ;)
nb
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 17:29:16 -0500, Dean Hoffman
<dh0496@in$ebr&as#ka.com> wrote:
>In article
><ddae1964-3f3e-4a94-986c-fbab6af403bd@x14g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Higgs Boson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Some cut.
>
>
>> Are you not aware that white ice -- glaciers, snowpack, etc. REFLECTS
>> certain wavelengths of sunlight such as infra-red.
>> But now that the ice and snow are melting at unprecedented historical
>> rates, due largely to CO2 entering the atmosphere in huge quantities,
>> the oceans are a beautiful dark blue -- which ABSORBS infra-red
>> radiation, aka heat.
>>
>> Oh, I give up. Some choose to cling to their little Faith structures
>> rather than looking at the evidence.
>>
>> HB
>
> This site claims glaciers are growing.
> http://www.iceagenow.com/index.htm
>
> I noticed one other thing as I glanced at it. There was
>supposedly half the amount of ice in the Arctic at times than there is
>now.
Ever wonder where the Northwest Passage idea came from? ;)
What the greenies forget to tell us is that while some glaciers recede
here, others grow there. Mother Nature finds balance, but it isn't
always in Man's best interest or convenience. <shrug>
My nitpick of the day: All those headlines and papers which say
"Scientists believe..."
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Pin wrote:
>
> AFAIAC less pollution can not be a bad thing. When I ride my roadbike
> in heavy traffic it is harder to catch my breath. When I ride in an
> area where there are a lot of trees, I feel a lot of difference in
> the air quality and my performance. The global warming deniers are
> the one who accuse the people who are concerned of being extremist or
> eco-terrorist. Well whatever you believe, I say we should make an
> effort to reduce the damn pollution.
Everybody's for less pollution. There's less pollution, of all kinds, than
there was in, say, 1976. There's a LOT less pollution today than there was
in 1850 London.
>
> The dust particules I breathed for so many years because my employer
> was more concern about sucking up more money instead of installing
> decent dust collector now have an impact on my lungs.
>
Evidently you were more concerned with sucking up money from your employer
than you were concerned about your health. Where's the difference?
Yup! Now where would the new glaciers be forming?
They have changed their minds so many times about this subject that belief
in the AGW scare tactics is waning.
e.g. "Global Warming" has now been relabeled to "Global Climate Shift".
e.g. They told us the oceans would rise about 20 metres or more until people
informed them that ice takes up less space when melted. Suddenly the ocean
levels would only rise by one metre.
e.g. We were originally told that ice core samples showed an increase in
temperature each year when CO2 levels were higher. Later scientists have
discovered they were reading it backwards and the warmer temperatures caused
more CO2 to be released from the oceans.
e.g. Global climate temperatures have decreased over the last 20 years
despite higher CO2 levels.
The list of retractions is endless and no credibility has been maintained. I
would like to know how they measured world average temperatures, accurately,
to one tenths of a degree over 100 years ago.
Was Chicken Little right? This is story from decades or more back and it
still is being promoted today.
------------
"zxcvbob" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
They're not even calling it Global Warming anymore. That was last year.
It's "climate change" now. (hedging their bets)
-Bob
On 9/2/2011 3:14 PM, DGDevin wrote:
> See, the way it works in the grownup world is you respond in a rational
> manner to what someone actually posts rather than making up something
> silly and responding to that instead. Or not, your choice, and clearly
> your choice is to sidestep anything that doesnât agree with your views.
And grownups address issues WITHOUT giving into juvenile ad hominem bombast.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 06:29:15 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/4/2011 11:53 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 20:21:50 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/4/2011 8:04 PM, Twayne wrote:
>> --snip--
>>> You putz! I recommended in an earlier post that you stick around for a
>>
>> Filters are your friend.
>>
>
>Damn Larry I am aware of that. Hell if I was as intolerant as you I
>would have filtered you long ago. ;~)
Thank you. <titter>
Is it intolerant to shield yourself from bozos, wear sunglasses, put
on sunscreen, wear jackets, put on mosquito repellant or swat flies?
Or are those simple protections against the irritants in life?
P.S: If you were that tolerant, you wouldn't be whining to 'em all. ;)
--
A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner, so if
one's life is cold and bare he can blame none but himself.
-- Louis L'Amour
On 9/4/2011 12:03 PM, Han wrote:
> The "Impact factors" of GRL& Remote Sensing are in the same ballpark,
> with RS higher, but declining as of lately
> <http://www.aboutgis.com/gis-and-remote-sensing-journal-list-with-impact-
> factors/>
>
> Impact factors supposedly rate the relative quality and importance of
> journals, but this is often skewed by the tendency of authors to quote
> their own work more than that of others ...
I'm sure that even Copernicus and Galileo would have agreed with that
... :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 2, 12:05 pm, Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 2:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 9/2/2011 12:24 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <[email protected]>,
>> >> Frank<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Global warming alarmists are a PITA
>>
>> >> Not as big of a pain as people who put more stock in politics than
>> >> science, though. You'll note that 99% of climate scientists believe AGW
>> >> is real. It's politicians who doubt it.
>>
>> > Sure global warming is real! hehe. SO WHAT! Exactly how much has the
>> > over all temperature changed in each of the past 100 years going back to
>> > the ice age.
>>
>> >> Back in the day, the White House had science advisors who helped shaped
>> >> policy. A certain recent retard in the White House dictated policy
>> >> first, and told his "advisors" to conform to it or be fired.
>>
>> > Now be nice to Carter.
>>
>> I advise people to read Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear".
>> Environmentalists decry it but it shows the mentality of global warning.
>>
>> I spent enough time in academia or academic environments to know the
>> mentality of these people. The fact that they are maybe 90% liberal may
>> be an underestimation. It is also where you find most of your
>> climatologists. If someone doesn't think that their science is tainted
>> by their political views, they must be in La La land ;)
>
>That book was a disgusting, exploitative piece of ****.
Despite that it was a work of fiction, it displayed the mental state
of the greenies and began a much better dialog about stated fears.
This was A Good Thing(tm). Run with it, boy! Read the books in his
bibliography if you dare. You'll soon change your mind about our
supposed global emergency.
I've been what you could call an environmentalist since 1970. I no
longer call myself that because of the idiots like Algore, Hansen, and
other eco-terrorists who go by that moniker. I do the things I can to
lessen my load on the planet. (reduce, reuse, recycle, buy local, buy
used, retask, regift, etc) Do you live that theme, too, or is all this
just hot air trolling?
>It's really painful to see bright, well-educated people falling for
>this ****, disregarding the concensus of all serious scientists.
When a large percentage of scientists dispute the efficacy of
massively costly "fixes" for said lunacy, I mean "emergency", I also
call that a good thing. Your concensus is all in your mind. (See
background on Algore's movie where the serious -lying- started.)
>Thirty years ago, James Hansen and other scientists laid out the whole
>scenario. Being played out, act by act.
Except they were predicting dire global COOLING back then.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Global Epic Fail.
Thanks for playing!
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/2/2011 7:29 PM, Han wrote:
Snip
>
> Yes time will tell, and I do believe that tolerance and respect for
> opposing views is important. But while I respect your opposing view
> regarding climate change, I can't understand the reasoning, since I
> believe the arguments are based on misconceptions. But ... time WILL
> tell.
35 or so years we were headed for another ice age, now it is global
warming... All this data that points to warming was pointing towards
cooling off. It is a natural occurrence, not man made.
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> The Noah weather radio says Noah, that's not possible. And,
> he should Noah.
>
> Noah what I mean?
>
Even Noah had his problems:
Lord: "Noah, my servant, why hast thou not finished the Ark which I
commanded thee to build?"
Noah: "Lord, my three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japeth have formed a rock band.
My wife of many years hath joined an awareness group. The gopher wood Thou
commandedest me to use won't be delivered until next Thursday!"
Lord: "What of the animals I commanded thee to gather, by pairs?"
Noah: "Lord, seventeen are endangered species and I am waiting for
government approval to move them. Oysters can be had only by dozens, and
water buffalos can not be had for love or money. I had a very unplesant
experience with a third monkey on the gangplank earlier in the week and
still bear great scars on my body.
"Lord, I am undone!"
Lord: "As am I. Why else do you think I planned this great flood?"
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
>> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
>> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
>> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
>> further back.
> I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I have
> heard. Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years ago when
> electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it is being
> collected today? You see 200 years ago most data that was collected was
> being done so very sporadically and with inconstant results from much more
> crude mechanical instruments.
The thermometer dates back to the 16th century and writing has been around
for thousands of years, so while it is true that detailed weather record
keeping is a more recent state of affairs, that does not mean human
observation of weather cannot be trusted more than a couple of hundred years
back. There are also other ways to study weather/climate such as examining
the growth rings of trees which can tell scientists a great deal about
temperature and rainfall in the past. Bones and even fossils can be used as
well by showing what kinds of plants and animals lived in various locations,
that's how we know that areas that are desert today were once arable. Even
archeology can contribute to climate studies, e.g. the remains of what
people ate hundreds or thousands of years ago tell us what kind of crops
they grew and that certainly tells us about the climate in the area at the
time. Consider the clear evidence of what is happening today with species
associated with warmer areas moving north and living at higher elevations
due to increasing temperatures--you don't need weather records to see that
these species are on the move as the climate changes, and thus it is
possible to apply that knowledge to the distant past. In other words you do
not need detailed records and electronic instruments to figure out what the
climate was like in the distant past. *That* is common sense.
>> Assuming that the only people who would be interested in a clean
>> environment would be "greenies" (whatever they are) or other left-wing
>> radicals is an odd way to look at it. From what I've seen Ducks
>> Unlimited isn't a group dominated by raving leftists, and yet they seem
>> to think protecting the environment is a worthwhile goal.
> Yeah! Lets let Ducks Unlimited be the "End All" to all the problems in
> the world.
See, the way it works in the grownup world is you respond in a rational
manner to what someone actually posts rather than making up something silly
and responding to that instead. Or not, your choice, and clearly your
choice is to sidestep anything that doesnât agree with your views.
In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote in news:__b8q.1618$wH6.1518
> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> > and yet those same scientist cannot reproduce the climate in their
> > computer generated models
>
> There is a lot about the climate that is very difficult to monitor and
> predict. But the trend and its association with greenhouse gases is a bit
> too strong to completely discount.
Serious question.. you are not really arguing that correlation is
causation are you?
So in the absence of definitive proof
> that manmade - anthropomorphic - greenhouse gases do not affect the
> climate, I only think it prudent to try to limit them.
Why? There is a definite cost associated with that, it isn't like
this is free.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > The paper under question deals with the correlation (actually the lack
> > thereof) of recent satellite temperature monitoring results, with
> > computer climate model methods, using data from both between 2000 to
> > 2010 ... NOT with tree rings, or any other form of attempts to
> > interpolate temperature reading when temperature recording devices were
> > unknown.
>
> My understanding of the controversy is that many climatologists doubt the
> accuracy, or the proper calibration of the methods of Spencer & Brasswell
> (sp?). That combined with the stated positions of these scientists on the
> theory of global warming, and their sources of funding make me disbelieve
> their results. Like it has been stated before - follow the money (or
> cherchez la femme in different circumstances).
Which of course includes the federal money. THAT is not be any means
clean money since who gets the money is decided by who appeals best to
the notions of the people doling it out. And that is further muddied by
the politics involved in getting the money allocated in the first place.
To take an example from an area I am more comfortable with, studies have
shown absolutely no correlation between the NIH money being spent and
(1) the number of people with a disease (2) the amount of money being
spent on treatment (3) the quality adjusted life years lost or gained or
any other measurement. It is largely based on who is yelling at the
COngress the loudest when the money is allocated (I have always wondered
about the correlation between the average Q-value of the disease's
spokespersons and funding, but nobody wants to give a grant to study
it--grin).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
On 9/2/2011 5:11 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>> Let's be fair and report on Roy Spencer's response:
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/breaking-editor-in-chief-of-remot
>> e-sensing-resigns-over-spencer-braswell-paper/
>>
>> Now, do you know anymore about the actual truth of the matter than you
>> did before writing the above headline?
>
> Sorry Karl, and with all respect, I believe the people who oppose what Roy
> Spencer said. People will see later who is right, but I don't think I'll
> have any feelings by that time anymore ...
You're a better man than me, Han ... I have a hard time believing any of
them. But I do have a pretty well honed sense of BS when I see it, I the
AGW folks have plenty of that themselves.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 9/2/2011 4:35 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>> "Swingman" did NOT wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
>>>> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200
>>>> years?
>>
>>> Can you document that they have?
>>
>> Scientists can tell us what the climate was like thousands of years
>> ago in parts of the world that today are deserts, for example by the
>> remains of the plants and animals that lived there including human
>> beings who grew crops where today that would be impossible without
>> irrigation. How do you suppose they do that without detailed records
>> made with electronic instruments? Is it *really* so hard to figure
>> out that they have other methods of determining such things? If
>> scientists haven't studied climate changes throughout and prior to
>> human history, how come you can go down to the library and read books
>> about them doing exactly that? If as Leon claims scientists haven't
>> looked at climate past 200 years, how they they do things like this?
>>
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/
>>
>> Gee--ice cores, growth rings in trees, sediments in oceans and lakes,
>> preserved remains of plants and animals including those in human
>> settlements--who could have guessed such things existed and have been
>> used to study climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, what
>> a revelation.
>>
>> Seriously, when did ignorance become the preferred state for so many
>> people?
Please don't attribute that to me ... I did NOT say that.
Thanks ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:
Let's be fair and report on Roy Spencer's response:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/breaking-editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-over-spencer-braswell-paper/
Now, do you know anymore about the actual truth of the matter than you
did before writing the above headline?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> What the real confusion here is that global warming
>> enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include
>> enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the
>> others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make
>> any type of accurate prediction.
>
> Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists
> studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years?
Can you document that they have?
The same qualification you ask for below apply to your response, should
you deign to give one.
> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't
> qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the
> authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any
> further back.
>
> If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
Ditto ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sep 3, 8:00=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> > That's an interesting statement. =A0Can you provide a link to a peer-
> >>reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? =A0If so, I=
'd
> >>like to read it.
>
> > Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2".
> > There is a ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why, even
> > though it's true, it isn't. =A0;-)
>
> First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). =A0You're absolutely
> correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. =A0But finding a
> site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to grind
> one way or the other proved impossible.
>
> The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations in
> the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2. =A0The C=
O2
> then intensifies the warming. =A0There's a name for that type of feedback
> circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
>
> But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
> authoritative. =A0So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of
> climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the climate.
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Typical. The fact that temp leads CO2 is just a
puzzling little inconvenient truth and can be ignored.
I bet you believed all the govt scientific experts that
told you that substituting tranfat loaded margarine
for butter was necessary or you would die. And that
eating lots of carbs, ie bread and pasta instead of meat
would make you trim and healthy. Remember who
started that govt song and dance? George McGovern.
Only problem was that it was all wrong. Now
America has an obesity epidemic with record
diabetes and heart disease. Now the govt is banning
transfat and the stupid dietary pyramid laden with
carbs is out too.
On Sep 4, 12:40=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Snip
>
>
>
> >> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around an=
d
> >> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measu=
re
> >> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
> >> around.
>
> > Unfortunately it's not that simple. =A0It's clearly not an issue
> > of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
> > atmosphere. =A0For example, there are layers of ice
> > hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
> > of year in the arctic. =A0Those ice layers contain trapped
> > air bubbles. =A0By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
> > lab and measuring the air components, we know how
> > the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
>
> Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
> selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of other
> places. =A0I shows what happen at the spot. =A0It would be silly to assum=
e
> that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
>
>
>
No data would ever satisfy your criteria. Not even if we had
the earth fully instrumented over 1 mil years in those trillions
of locations. You'd still come up with, "But....."
It's not as if those core ice samples are the only data.
We do have fossil and other evidence from countless
places on the planet. They show several cycles of
warming and cooling occuring around the whole planet
in complete conformity with the ice core samples which
show the arctic warming/cooling and the accompanying
CO2 concentrations.
Almost everyone, even most of the man-made
global warming skeptics agree that these cycles
of CO2 have occured and are related to global warming.
It would be pretty far-fetched for the CO2 concentration
at the arctic to be ocurring in perfect synch with
global warming cycles over 600,000 years and for
it to be some isolated local phenomenom.
If your not willing to accept that association, you
might as well deny that smoking is linked to lung cancer.
>
>
>
>
> >> =A0 A similar example, hurricanes. =A0We now very often almost reach
> >> the end of the alphabet naming the storms, 50 years ago you seldom hea=
rd
> >> named storms getting much past the first few letters of the alphabet.
> >> Does that mean that there are more storms, hell no!
> >> It means that we now have weather satellites =A0that find storms that =
we
> >> never would have seen before.
>
> > This would suggest that is incorrect too:
>
> >http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp
>
> > =A0From 2000 through 2009 there were 74 hurricanes.
> > =A0From 1950 through 1959 there were 69 hurricanes
>
> > I agree that if you go back far enough, that less
> > would be noticed or catgorized, but you have to
> > go back a lot longer than 50 years.
>
> Your counts above pretty much qualify my statement, =A0there are no more
> storms today than there were 50-60 years ago. =A0More storms are named
> today than there used to be.
>
>
>
> >> Plus it used to be that a storm was not
> >> named until it became an actual hurricane. =A0Now if a rain storm has
> >> winds similar to what you would find along =A0the coast on a windy day=
it
> >> gets named.
>
> > Not true either. =A0AFAIK, no ordinary rain storm
> > gets named. =A0It must be a tropical storm, ie have a
> > large low pressure center and sustained winds
> > of at least 39MPH.
>
> Tongue in cheek but most named storms are never a threat to anyone.
> Today storms are being named faster than most people can keep up.
>
>
>
> >> You gotta justify all that invested money, finding more
> >> which we never saw before and lowering the qualification for naming a
> >> storm makes the technology and equipment easier to swallow. =A0Does it
> >> save property and or more lives, NO. =A0I probably caused more deaths =
from
> >> panic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I guess you'd prefer the days of old, when no one
> > knew a hurricane or tropical storm was about to
> > hit until it was too late to do anything.
>
> No, I prefer the old days when you had a warning about a serious threat,
> not to be constantly bombarded with scarey scenarios this year because
> the predictions for named storms is going to be exceptionally high and
> no storm actually hits the main land. =A0There were more death from the
> evacuation from Rita in 2005 than from the storm itself. =A0I distinctly
> recall Dr Neil Frank/ the weather forcaster at one of the Houston TV
> stations in so many words indicating that Rita was going to be a Cat 5
> storm and would directly hit Houston and the results were going to be
> devastating. =A0The storm missed, but the results of the evacuation from
> the panic was devastating.
>
> Dr. Neil Frank shortly there after left the station after many years.
> Sensationalism along with quotas that needed to be filled were totally
> responsible for the tragedy that occurred.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:57:31 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:19:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The "logic" problem is that when the
>> data is graphed, in each of those cycles, temperature begins to rise for
>> a few hundred to about 1500 years BEFORE CO2 increases.
>
>That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer-
>reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so, I'd
>like to read it.
Do you consider Science to be respectable? http://goo.gl/N2j1Q
http://goo.gl/o3cLt Icecap.us
http://goo.gl/RPxcR CO2 Science
http://goo.gl/FEM04 Heartlander
http://goo.gl/ouglz Globalwarmingclassroom.info
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Snip
>>
>> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
>> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
>> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
>> around.
>
> Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's clearly not an issue
> of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
> atmosphere. For example, there are layers of ice
> hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
> of year in the arctic. Those ice layers contain trapped
> air bubbles. By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
> lab and measuring the air components, we know how
> the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of other
places. I shows what happen at the spot. It would be silly to assume
that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
>
>
>
>> A similar example, hurricanes. We now very often almost reach
>> the end of the alphabet naming the storms, 50 years ago you seldom heard
>> named storms getting much past the first few letters of the alphabet.
>> Does that mean that there are more storms, hell no!
>> It means that we now have weather satellites that find storms that we
>> never would have seen before.
>
> This would suggest that is incorrect too:
>
> http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp
>
> From 2000 through 2009 there were 74 hurricanes.
> From 1950 through 1959 there were 69 hurricanes
>
> I agree that if you go back far enough, that less
> would be noticed or catgorized, but you have to
> go back a lot longer than 50 years.
Your counts above pretty much qualify my statement, there are no more
storms today than there were 50-60 years ago. More storms are named
today than there used to be.
>
>
>> Plus it used to be that a storm was not
>> named until it became an actual hurricane. Now if a rain storm has
>> winds similar to what you would find along the coast on a windy day it
>> gets named.
>
>
> Not true either. AFAIK, no ordinary rain storm
> gets named. It must be a tropical storm, ie have a
> large low pressure center and sustained winds
> of at least 39MPH.
Tongue in cheek but most named storms are never a threat to anyone.
Today storms are being named faster than most people can keep up.
>
>
>
>> You gotta justify all that invested money, finding more
>> which we never saw before and lowering the qualification for naming a
>> storm makes the technology and equipment easier to swallow. Does it
>> save property and or more lives, NO. I probably caused more deaths from
>> panic.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I guess you'd prefer the days of old, when no one
> knew a hurricane or tropical storm was about to
> hit until it was too late to do anything.
No, I prefer the old days when you had a warning about a serious threat,
not to be constantly bombarded with scarey scenarios this year because
the predictions for named storms is going to be exceptionally high and
no storm actually hits the main land. There were more death from the
evacuation from Rita in 2005 than from the storm itself. I distinctly
recall Dr Neil Frank/ the weather forcaster at one of the Houston TV
stations in so many words indicating that Rita was going to be a Cat 5
storm and would directly hit Houston and the results were going to be
devastating. The storm missed, but the results of the evacuation from
the panic was devastating.
Dr. Neil Frank shortly there after left the station after many years.
Sensationalism along with quotas that needed to be filled were totally
responsible for the tragedy that occurred.
On Sep 5, 5:11=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
> > Every time you fart you effect
AFFECT
the climate, just as a butterfly
> > flapping it's
ITS wings...
>
> > What are you going to do about your farting?
>
> Continue flapping the bedcovers. =A0Screw the environmnet...
Apres moi, le deluge.
HB
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:57:31 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:19:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The "logic" problem is that when the
>> data is graphed, in each of those cycles, temperature begins to rise for
>> a few hundred to about 1500 years BEFORE CO2 increases.
>
>That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer-
>reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so, I'd
>like to read it.
Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2". There is a
ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why, even though it's true,
it isn't. ;-)
Apparently the difference between climate and weather is not understood by
your ignorant comment.
-----------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Right now the entire southern half of the globe is running into that
damned climate change, and eeek, it is a warming trend for sure.
On Sep 5, 4:16=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Higgs Boson wrote:
>
> >> Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to "Global
> >> Climate Change".
>
> > Not exactly. =A0It's just "climate change". =A0Results from studies by =
the
> > anti global warming think thanks such as the Marshall Institute
> > showed "climate change"" to be less threatening to the sheeple than
> > the original term which had been the scientific term for 30-40
> > years. =A0 The sheep media then obediently picked up the new term, and
> > the sheeple followed.
>
> Sounds like Newspeak. The mantra thirty or forty years ago was "Global
> Cooling." "Another ice age is imminent! We're all gonna die!" and so fort=
h.
On 9/6/2011 7:08 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 2:40 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> in 1508468 20110906 033502 "Stormin
>> Mormon"<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Climate change is not caused by mankind. Neither is global
>>> warming, if there were such warming.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher A. Young
>>> Learn more about Jesus
>>> www.lds.org
>>> ..
>>
>> Blame Jesus then ...
>
> Bullshit! It's Bush's fault!
>
It has been determined that is what caused the recent east coast earthquake.
On 9/6/2011 9:08 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 2:40 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> in 1508468 20110906 033502 "Stormin
>> Mormon"<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Climate change is not caused by mankind. Neither is global
>>> warming, if there were such warming.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher A. Young
>>> Learn more about Jesus
>>> www.lds.org
>>> ..
>>
>> Blame Jesus then ...
>
> Bullshit! It's Bush's fault!
>
ROTFLMAO
On Sep 5, 4:16=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Higgs Boson wrote:
>
> >> Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to "Global
> >> Climate Change".
>
> > Not exactly. =A0It's just "climate change". =A0Results from studies by =
the
> > anti global warming think thanks such as the Marshall Institute
> > showed "climate change"" to be less threatening to the sheeple than
> > the original term which had been the scientific term for 30-40
> > years. =A0 The sheep media then obediently picked up the new term, and
> > the sheeple followed.
>
> Sounds like Newspeak. The mantra thirty or forty years ago was "Global
> Cooling." "Another ice age is imminent! We're all gonna die!" and so fort=
h.
But was that "mantra" you are citing a popular ""sky is falling""
thing, or was it solid science, backed by 99-44/100 of serious
scientists, like global warming?
Let's not mislead by comparing apples & oranges.
HB
On 9/5/2011 10:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:01:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article<44281c07-9fa5-4a74-b047-6a61f9c89ad6
>> @r21g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 12:40 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
>>>>>> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
>>>>>> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
>>>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's clearly not an issue
>>>>> of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
>>>>> atmosphere. For example, there are layers of ice
>>>>> hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
>>>>> of year in the arctic. Those ice layers contain trapped
>>>>> air bubbles. By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
>>>>> lab and measuring the air components, we know how
>>>>> the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
>>>> selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of other
>>>> places. I shows what happen at the spot. It would be silly to assume
>>>> that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No data would ever satisfy your criteria. Not even if we had
>>> the earth fully instrumented over 1 mil years in those trillions
>>> of locations. You'd still come up with, "But....."
>>>
>>> It's not as if those core ice samples are the only data.
>>> We do have fossil and other evidence from countless
>>> places on the planet. They show several cycles of
>>> warming and cooling occuring around the whole planet
>>> in complete conformity with the ice core samples which
>>> show the arctic warming/cooling and the accompanying
>>> CO2 concentrations.
>>>
>>> Almost everyone, even most of the man-made
>>> global warming skeptics agree that these cycles
>>> of CO2 have occured and are related to global warming.
>>
>> Related to temperature cycles.
>>
>> Current "global warming" seems to be related to the "rising" portion of
>> the long term temperature cycle. We're living near the point where it
>> transitions from "rising" to "falling".
>
> Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate
> Change".
Eventually the transition will be back to Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall,
repeat. :~)
On 9/6/2011 2:40 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
> in 1508468 20110906 033502 "Stormin Mormon"<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Climate change is not caused by mankind. Neither is global
>> warming, if there were such warming.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher A. Young
>> Learn more about Jesus
>> www.lds.org
>> ..
>
> Blame Jesus then ...
Bullshit! It's Bush's fault!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 9/6/2011 6:16 PM, Bill wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>> AND YOUR HOME REPAIR QUESTIOIN IS?
>> NOTE THE NAME OF THISE NG IS NOT "ot"
>> LAZY ASS!
>>
>>
>
> This is about the only "forum" I frequent. You might have noticed
> that I didn't wait around for a reply before I went to work on the
> solution. LA? Naw.
This Twayne guy is like diarrhea.
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:01:04 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <44281c07-9fa5-4a74-b047-6a61f9c89ad6
>@r21g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sep 4, 12:40 pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> > On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> > Snip
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
>> > >> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
>> > >> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
>> > >> around.
>> >
>> > > Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's clearly not an issue
>> > > of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
>> > > atmosphere. For example, there are layers of ice
>> > > hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
>> > > of year in the arctic. Those ice layers contain trapped
>> > > air bubbles. By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
>> > > lab and measuring the air components, we know how
>> > > the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
>> > selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of other
>> > places. I shows what happen at the spot. It would be silly to assume
>> > that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No data would ever satisfy your criteria. Not even if we had
>> the earth fully instrumented over 1 mil years in those trillions
>> of locations. You'd still come up with, "But....."
>>
>> It's not as if those core ice samples are the only data.
>> We do have fossil and other evidence from countless
>> places on the planet. They show several cycles of
>> warming and cooling occuring around the whole planet
>> in complete conformity with the ice core samples which
>> show the arctic warming/cooling and the accompanying
>> CO2 concentrations.
>>
>> Almost everyone, even most of the man-made
>> global warming skeptics agree that these cycles
>> of CO2 have occured and are related to global warming.
>
>Related to temperature cycles.
>
>Current "global warming" seems to be related to the "rising" portion of
>the long term temperature cycle. We're living near the point where it
>transitions from "rising" to "falling".
Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate
Change".
On Sep 5, 8:31=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:01:04 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wr=
ote:
> >In article <44281c07-9fa5-4a74-b047-6a61f9c89ad6
> >@r21g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> >> On Sep 4, 12:40=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >> > On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > Snip
>
> >> > >> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be arou=
nd and
> >> > >> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and =
measure
> >> > >> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of=
it
> >> > >> around.
>
> >> > > Unfortunately it's not that simple. =A0It's clearly not an issue
> >> > > of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
> >> > > atmosphere. =A0For example, there are layers of ice
> >> > > hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
> >> > > of year in the arctic. =A0Those ice layers contain trapped
> >> > > air bubbles. =A0By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
> >> > > lab and measuring the air components, we know how
> >> > > the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
>
> >> > Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
> >> > selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of oth=
er
> >> > places. =A0I shows what happen at the spot. =A0It would be silly to =
assume
> >> > that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
>
> >> No data would ever satisfy your criteria. =A0Not even if we had
> >> the earth fully instrumented over 1 mil years in those trillions
> >> of locations. =A0You'd still come up with, "But....."
>
> >> It's not as if those core ice samples are the only data.
> >> We do have fossil and other evidence from countless
> >> places on the planet. =A0They show several cycles of
> >> warming and cooling occuring around the whole planet
> >> in complete conformity with the ice core samples which
> >> show the arctic warming/cooling and the accompanying
> >> CO2 concentrations.
>
> >> Almost everyone, even most of the man-made
> >> global warming skeptics agree that these cycles
> >> of CO2 have occured and are related to global warming.
>
> >Related to temperature cycles.
>
> >Current "global warming" seems to be related to the "rising" portion of
> >the long term temperature cycle. =A0We're living near the point where it
> >transitions from "rising" to "falling".
>
> Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to "Global Clim=
ate
> Change".
Not exactly. It's just "climate change". Results from studies by the
anti global warming think thanks such as the Marshall Institute
showed "climate change"" to be less threatening to the sheeple than
the original term which had been the scientific term for 30-40
years. The sheep media then obediently picked up the new term, and
the sheeple followed.
HB
HB
On 9/5/2011 9:46 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Higgs Boson wrote:
>> But was that "mantra" you are citing a popular ""sky is falling""
>> thing, or was it solid science, backed by 99-44/100 of serious
>> scientists, like global warming?
>> Let's not mislead by comparing apples& oranges.
> Science
Very good Bub. You left out a poignant quote.
"Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one
thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry,
high-altitude polar winds the so-called circumpolar vortex"
Perhaps Higgs can run this stuff through his grammar checker and see if
it should have any effect on his mental illness...
--
Jack
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
http://jbstein.com
> Time Magazine - Monday, June 24, 1974 [within your 30-40 year time frame]
>
> "...when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe
> they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past
> three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.
>
> "...the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of
> another ice age.
>
> "Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.
> Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other
> convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's
> Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite
> weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the
> ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase
> has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for
> example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered
> year round."
>
> And more...
>
> Read more:
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz1X8HOSAu7
>
>
On 9/5/2011 10:35 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Climate change is not caused by mankind. Neither is global
> warming, if there were such warming.
Right now the entire southern half of the globe is running into that
damned climate change, and eeek, it is a warming trend for sure.
--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ======> Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com
On 9/6/2011 10:08 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 2:40 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
>>> Climate change is not caused by mankind. Neither is global
>>> warming, if there were such warming.
>> Blame Jesus then ...
> Bullshit! It's Bush's fault!
Doesn't anyone believe in Titan or Apollo?
Bush may have been a liberal, but he was no sun god!
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 9/6/2011 12:20 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Apparently the difference between climate and weather is not understood
> by your ignorant comment.
Be careful, you're getting pretty close to making "noise"!
>
>
> -----------------
> "Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Right now the entire southern half of the globe is running into that
> damned climate change, and eeek, it is a warming trend for sure.
>
>
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/6/2011 7:08 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 9/6/2011 2:40 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>>> in 1508468 20110906 033502 "Stormin
>>> Mormon"<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Climate change is not caused by mankind. Neither is global
>>>> warming, if there were such warming.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher A. Young
>>>> Learn more about Jesus
>>>> www.lds.org
>>>> ..
>>>
>>> Blame Jesus then ...
>>
>> Bullshit! It's Bush's fault!
>>
> It has been determined that is what caused the recent east coast
> earthquake.
Got to be bad getting a Fault named for you!
--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Apparently the difference between climate and weather is not understood by
> your ignorant comment.
>
>
Define Climate.
> -----------------
> "Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Right now the entire southern half of the globe is running into that
> damned climate change, and eeek, it is a warming trend for sure.
>
>
--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Twayne wrote:
>> AND YOUR HOME REPAIR QUESTIOIN IS?
>> NOTE THE NAME OF THISE NG IS NOT "ot"
>> LAZY ASS!
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, I thought I was watching the weather channel. : )
LOL!
--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."
Higgs Boson wrote:
>>
>> Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to "Global
>> Climate Change".
>
> Not exactly. It's just "climate change". Results from studies by the
> anti global warming think thanks such as the Marshall Institute
> showed "climate change"" to be less threatening to the sheeple than
> the original term which had been the scientific term for 30-40
> years. The sheep media then obediently picked up the new term, and
> the sheeple followed.
>
Sounds like Newspeak. The mantra thirty or forty years ago was "Global
Cooling." "Another ice age is imminent! We're all gonna die!" and so forth.
Higgs Boson wrote:
> On Sep 5, 4:16 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Higgs Boson wrote:
>>
>>>> Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to
>>>> "Global Climate Change".
>>
>>> Not exactly. It's just "climate change". Results from studies by the
>>> anti global warming think thanks such as the Marshall Institute
>>> showed "climate change"" to be less threatening to the sheeple than
>>> the original term which had been the scientific term for 30-40
>>> years. The sheep media then obediently picked up the new term, and
>>> the sheeple followed.
>>
>> Sounds like Newspeak. The mantra thirty or forty years ago was
>> "Global Cooling." "Another ice age is imminent! We're all gonna
>> die!" and so forth.
>
> But was that "mantra" you are citing a popular ""sky is falling""
> thing, or was it solid science, backed by 99-44/100 of serious
> scientists, like global warming?
> Let's not mislead by comparing apples & oranges.
>
Science
Time Magazine - Monday, June 24, 1974 [within your 30-40 year time frame]
"...when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe
they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past
three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.
"...the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of
another ice age.
"Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.
Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other
convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite
weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the
ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase
has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for
example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered
year round."
And more...
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz1X8HOSAu7
On 9/6/2011 2:40 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
> in 1508468 20110906 033502 "Stormin Mormon"<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Climate change is not caused by mankind. Neither is global
>> warming, if there were such warming.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher A. Young
>> Learn more about Jesus
>> www.lds.org
>> ..
>
> Blame Jesus then ...
There is no blame, It is his to do as he wishes.
On 9/5/2011 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
> The difference here is that we actually know that smoking contributes to
> lung cancer cancer. Absolutely nothing has been proven by data from
> samples of prehistoric ice concerning climate change being caused by
> man.. Again it is all speculative.
Actually, that's pretty easy to prove beyond argument!
"Man" was either not yet in existence or, if he was, was he capable of
burning fossil fuel to the extent necessary to cause the supposed AGW.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 9/4/2011 8:06 AM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:2baaed07-7de0-4532-913d-ea50bcac524e@p10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sep 3, 8:00 pm, Larry Blanchard<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer-
>>>>> reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so,
>>>>> I
>> 'd
>>>>> like to read it.
>>>
>>>> Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2".
>>>> There is a ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why,
>>>> even though it's true, it isn't. ;-)
>>>
>>> First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). You're absolutely
>>> correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. But finding a
>>> site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to
>>> grind one way or the other proved impossible.
>>>
>>> The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations
>>> in the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2.
>>> The C
>> O2
>>> then intensifies the warming. There's a name for that type of
>>> feedback circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
>>>
>>> But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
>>> authoritative. So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of
>>> climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the
>>> climate.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>>
>> Typical. The fact that temp leads CO2 is just a
>> puzzling little inconvenient truth and can be ignored.
>> I bet you believed all the govt scientific experts that
>> told you that substituting tranfat loaded margarine
>> for butter was necessary or you would die. And that
>> eating lots of carbs, ie bread and pasta instead of meat
>> would make you trim and healthy. Remember who
>> started that govt song and dance? George McGovern.
>> Only problem was that it was all wrong. Now
>> America has an obesity epidemic with record
>> diabetes and heart disease. Now the govt is banning
>> transfat and the stupid dietary pyramid laden with
>> carbs is out too.
>
> Scientists were decrying transfats long before, as they were decrying
> some of the corn-derived unsaturated fats. We need the really
> polyunsaturated long and very long chain fatty acids. There should be
> very many sources going back many, many years, but for reent stuff Google
> CN Serhan and "resolution of inflammation" Caveat: Charlie is a
> scientist who has attributed part of his education to me.
>
> Margarine has "saved" many people who couldn't afford butter when that
> was a luxury.
>
> But the main point is this - there is a relationship between CO2 and
> temperature. If warming leads CO2 over geological time periods, we could
> be talking about a feed-forward mechanism, where solar input raises
> temps, which raises CO2, which then further raises temps. Once started,
> that vicious cycle might be difficult to stop. But now we aren't dealing
> with geological time periods of thousands or hundreds of thousands of
> years. Greeenland might have been called green because for a relatively
> short period, when temperatures were such that Greenland was indeed green
> while Iceland was ice. Who knows the intentions of those old Vikings
> when they named things. When temps became more like the average, they
> disappeared from Greenland (and Canada?). Now we are dealing with short
> time periods again, and we don't know how to stop warming other than by
> limiting CO2. Some fancy ideas have come up though, and the laws of
> unintended consequences really scare me - put up some SO2 clouds in the
> stratosphere to reflect light back into space, for instance. I'd rather
> have black asphalt be replaced by white concrete.
>
Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
around. A similar example, hurricanes. We now very often almost reach
the end of the alphabet naming the storms, 50 years ago you seldom heard
named storms getting much past the first few letters of the alphabet.
Does that mean that there are more storms, hell no!
It means that we now have weather satellites that find storms that we
never would have seen before. Plus it used to be that a storm was not
named until it became an actual hurricane. Now if a rain storm has
winds similar to what you would find along the coast on a windy day it
gets named. You gotta justify all that invested money, finding more
which we never saw before and lowering the qualification for naming a
storm makes the technology and equipment easier to swallow. Does it
save property and or more lives, NO. I probably caused more deaths from
panic.
On 9/5/2011 7:53 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 4, 12:40 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
>>>> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
>>>> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
>>>> around.
>>
>>> Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's clearly not an issue
>>> of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
>>> atmosphere. For example, there are layers of ice
>>> hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
>>> of year in the arctic. Those ice layers contain trapped
>>> air bubbles. By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
>>> lab and measuring the air components, we know how
>>> the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
>>
>> Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
>> selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of other
>> places. I shows what happen at the spot. It would be silly to assume
>> that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
>>
>>
>>
>
> No data would ever satisfy your criteria. Not even if we had
> the earth fully instrumented over 1 mil years in those trillions
> of locations. You'd still come up with, "But....."
> It's not as if those core ice samples are the only data.
> We do have fossil and other evidence from countless
> places on the planet. They show several cycles of
> warming and cooling occuring around the whole planet
> in complete conformity with the ice core samples which
> show the arctic warming/cooling and the accompanying
> CO2 concentrations.
That is right, I not be satisfied until we stop trying to fix the minute
problems that have little to no return. Samples of what went on
thousands of years ago will never show a true picture and deductions
from those samples will always only be speculative.
>
> Almost everyone, even most of the man-made
> global warming skeptics agree that these cycles
> of CO2 have occured and are related to global warming.
> It would be pretty far-fetched for the CO2 concentration
> at the arctic to be ocurring in perfect synch with
> global warming cycles over 600,000 years and for
> it to be some isolated local phenomenom.
>
> If your not willing to accept that association, you
> might as well deny that smoking is linked to lung cancer.
The difference here is that we actually know that smoking contributes to
lung cancer cancer. Absolutely nothing has been proven by data from
samples of prehistoric ice concerning climate change being caused by
man.. Again it is all speculative.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A similar example, hurricanes. We now very often almost reach
>>>> the end of the alphabet naming the storms, 50 years ago you seldom heard
>>>> named storms getting much past the first few letters of the alphabet.
>>>> Does that mean that there are more storms, hell no!
>>>> It means that we now have weather satellites that find storms that we
>>>> never would have seen before.
>>
>>> This would suggest that is incorrect too:
>>
>>> http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp
>>
>>> From 2000 through 2009 there were 74 hurricanes.
>>> From 1950 through 1959 there were 69 hurricanes
>>
>>> I agree that if you go back far enough, that less
>>> would be noticed or catgorized, but you have to
>>> go back a lot longer than 50 years.
>>
>> Your counts above pretty much qualify my statement, there are no more
>> storms today than there were 50-60 years ago. More storms are named
>> today than there used to be.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Plus it used to be that a storm was not
>>>> named until it became an actual hurricane. Now if a rain storm has
>>>> winds similar to what you would find along the coast on a windy day it
>>>> gets named.
>>
>>> Not true either. AFAIK, no ordinary rain storm
>>> gets named. It must be a tropical storm, ie have a
>>> large low pressure center and sustained winds
>>> of at least 39MPH.
>>
>> Tongue in cheek but most named storms are never a threat to anyone.
>> Today storms are being named faster than most people can keep up.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You gotta justify all that invested money, finding more
>>>> which we never saw before and lowering the qualification for naming a
>>>> storm makes the technology and equipment easier to swallow. Does it
>>>> save property and or more lives, NO. I probably caused more deaths from
>>>> panic.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> I guess you'd prefer the days of old, when no one
>>> knew a hurricane or tropical storm was about to
>>> hit until it was too late to do anything.
>>
>> No, I prefer the old days when you had a warning about a serious threat,
>> not to be constantly bombarded with scarey scenarios this year because
>> the predictions for named storms is going to be exceptionally high and
>> no storm actually hits the main land. There were more death from the
>> evacuation from Rita in 2005 than from the storm itself. I distinctly
>> recall Dr Neil Frank/ the weather forcaster at one of the Houston TV
>> stations in so many words indicating that Rita was going to be a Cat 5
>> storm and would directly hit Houston and the results were going to be
>> devastating. The storm missed, but the results of the evacuation from
>> the panic was devastating.
>>
>> Dr. Neil Frank shortly there after left the station after many years.
>> Sensationalism along with quotas that needed to be filled were totally
>> responsible for the tragedy that occurred.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
In article <44281c07-9fa5-4a74-b047-6a61f9c89ad6
@r21g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sep 4, 12:40 pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> > On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > Snip
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
> > >> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
> > >> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
> > >> around.
> >
> > > Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's clearly not an issue
> > > of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
> > > atmosphere. For example, there are layers of ice
> > > hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
> > > of year in the arctic. Those ice layers contain trapped
> > > air bubbles. By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
> > > lab and measuring the air components, we know how
> > > the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
> >
> > Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
> > selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of other
> > places. I shows what happen at the spot. It would be silly to assume
> > that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
> >
> >
> >
>
> No data would ever satisfy your criteria. Not even if we had
> the earth fully instrumented over 1 mil years in those trillions
> of locations. You'd still come up with, "But....."
>
> It's not as if those core ice samples are the only data.
> We do have fossil and other evidence from countless
> places on the planet. They show several cycles of
> warming and cooling occuring around the whole planet
> in complete conformity with the ice core samples which
> show the arctic warming/cooling and the accompanying
> CO2 concentrations.
>
> Almost everyone, even most of the man-made
> global warming skeptics agree that these cycles
> of CO2 have occured and are related to global warming.
Related to temperature cycles.
Current "global warming" seems to be related to the "rising" portion of
the long term temperature cycle. We're living near the point where it
transitions from "rising" to "falling".
> It would be pretty far-fetched for the CO2 concentration
> at the arctic to be ocurring in perfect synch with
> global warming cycles over 600,000 years and for
> it to be some isolated local phenomenom.
>
> If your not willing to accept that association, you
> might as well deny that smoking is linked to lung cancer.
<snip>
>> My guess was it is Erics name for those living in the US?
And those within the US have names for themselves ........ Yankees
........... Southerners .............. Cajuns .............. et al, but the
best is us in Utah ...... Utards.
Steve ;-)
--
Please go to my facebook page, Heart Surgery Survival Guide and LIKE me so I
can get my domain name.
Heart surgery pending?
www.heartsurgerysurvivalguide.com
Heart Surgery Survival Guide
Now on facebook, too.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:2baaed07-7de0-4532-913d-ea50bcac524e@p10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 3, 8:00 pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>> > That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer-
>> >>reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so,
>> >>I
> 'd
>> >>like to read it.
>>
>> > Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2".
>> > There is a ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why,
>> > even though it's true, it isn't. ;-)
>>
>> First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). You're absolutely
>> correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. But finding a
>> site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to
>> grind one way or the other proved impossible.
>>
>> The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations
>> in the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2.
>> The C
> O2
>> then intensifies the warming. There's a name for that type of
>> feedback circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
>>
>> But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
>> authoritative. So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of
>> climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the
>> climate.
>>
>> --
>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
> Typical. The fact that temp leads CO2 is just a
> puzzling little inconvenient truth and can be ignored.
> I bet you believed all the govt scientific experts that
> told you that substituting tranfat loaded margarine
> for butter was necessary or you would die. And that
> eating lots of carbs, ie bread and pasta instead of meat
> would make you trim and healthy. Remember who
> started that govt song and dance? George McGovern.
> Only problem was that it was all wrong. Now
> America has an obesity epidemic with record
> diabetes and heart disease. Now the govt is banning
> transfat and the stupid dietary pyramid laden with
> carbs is out too.
Scientists were decrying transfats long before, as they were decrying
some of the corn-derived unsaturated fats. We need the really
polyunsaturated long and very long chain fatty acids. There should be
very many sources going back many, many years, but for reent stuff Google
CN Serhan and "resolution of inflammation" Caveat: Charlie is a
scientist who has attributed part of his education to me.
Margarine has "saved" many people who couldn't afford butter when that
was a luxury.
But the main point is this - there is a relationship between CO2 and
temperature. If warming leads CO2 over geological time periods, we could
be talking about a feed-forward mechanism, where solar input raises
temps, which raises CO2, which then further raises temps. Once started,
that vicious cycle might be difficult to stop. But now we aren't dealing
with geological time periods of thousands or hundreds of thousands of
years. Greeenland might have been called green because for a relatively
short period, when temperatures were such that Greenland was indeed green
while Iceland was ice. Who knows the intentions of those old Vikings
when they named things. When temps became more like the average, they
disappeared from Greenland (and Canada?). Now we are dealing with short
time periods again, and we don't know how to stop warming other than by
limiting CO2. Some fancy ideas have come up though, and the laws of
unintended consequences really scare me - put up some SO2 clouds in the
stratosphere to reflect light back into space, for instance. I'd rather
have black asphalt be replaced by white concrete.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:55:19 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sep 5, 8:31 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:01:04 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >In article <44281c07-9fa5-4a74-b047-6a61f9c89ad6
>> >@r21g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> >> On Sep 4, 12:40 pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> >> > On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> > Snip
>>
>> >> > >> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
>> >> > >> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
>> >> > >> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
>> >> > >> around.
>>
>> >> > > Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's clearly not an issue
>> >> > > of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
>> >> > > atmosphere. For example, there are layers of ice
>> >> > > hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
>> >> > > of year in the arctic. Those ice layers contain trapped
>> >> > > air bubbles. By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
>> >> > > lab and measuring the air components, we know how
>> >> > > the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
>>
>> >> > Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
>> >> > selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of other
>> >> > places. I shows what happen at the spot. It would be silly to assume
>> >> > that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
>>
>> >> No data would ever satisfy your criteria. Not even if we had
>> >> the earth fully instrumented over 1 mil years in those trillions
>> >> of locations. You'd still come up with, "But....."
>>
>> >> It's not as if those core ice samples are the only data.
>> >> We do have fossil and other evidence from countless
>> >> places on the planet. They show several cycles of
>> >> warming and cooling occuring around the whole planet
>> >> in complete conformity with the ice core samples which
>> >> show the arctic warming/cooling and the accompanying
>> >> CO2 concentrations.
>>
>> >> Almost everyone, even most of the man-made
>> >> global warming skeptics agree that these cycles
>> >> of CO2 have occured and are related to global warming.
>>
>> >Related to temperature cycles.
>>
>> >Current "global warming" seems to be related to the "rising" portion of
>> >the long term temperature cycle. We're living near the point where it
>> >transitions from "rising" to "falling".
>>
>> Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate
>> Change".
>
>Not exactly. It's just "climate change". Results from studies by the
>anti global warming think thanks such as the Marshall Institute
>showed "climate change"" to be less threatening to the sheeple than
>the original term which had been the scientific term for 30-40
>years. The sheep media then obediently picked up the new term, and
>the sheeple followed.
No, the anti-industrialists (anti-Western Civ) have simply hedged their bets.
No matter what happens, "see!".
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:32:28 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 9/5/2011 10:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:01:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<44281c07-9fa5-4a74-b047-6a61f9c89ad6
>>> @r21g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 4, 12:40 pm, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/4/2011 10:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Snip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
>>>>>>> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
>>>>>>> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's clearly not an issue
>>>>>> of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
>>>>>> atmosphere. For example, there are layers of ice
>>>>>> hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
>>>>>> of year in the arctic. Those ice layers contain trapped
>>>>>> air bubbles. By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
>>>>>> lab and measuring the air components, we know how
>>>>>> the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately it is not that simple, taking a core sample from a
>>>>> selected spot does not reflect the situation in the trillions of other
>>>>> places. I shows what happen at the spot. It would be silly to assume
>>>>> that those samples would reflect how the whole world was then.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No data would ever satisfy your criteria. Not even if we had
>>>> the earth fully instrumented over 1 mil years in those trillions
>>>> of locations. You'd still come up with, "But....."
>>>>
>>>> It's not as if those core ice samples are the only data.
>>>> We do have fossil and other evidence from countless
>>>> places on the planet. They show several cycles of
>>>> warming and cooling occuring around the whole planet
>>>> in complete conformity with the ice core samples which
>>>> show the arctic warming/cooling and the accompanying
>>>> CO2 concentrations.
>>>>
>>>> Almost everyone, even most of the man-made
>>>> global warming skeptics agree that these cycles
>>>> of CO2 have occured and are related to global warming.
>>>
>>> Related to temperature cycles.
>>>
>>> Current "global warming" seems to be related to the "rising" portion of
>>> the long term temperature cycle. We're living near the point where it
>>> transitions from "rising" to "falling".
>>
>> Notice that we've also transitioned from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate
>> Change".
>
>Eventually the transition will be back to Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall,
>repeat. :~)
That's the beauty of "Climate change". It covers 'em all. No matter what
happens, raise taxes! Problem solved.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:f0077bb0-
[email protected]:
> What a joke. Since when was butter a necessity? I see
> the UN delivering food to starving people and have yet to
> see them dropping in trucks of butter or margarine. Nor
> during my lifetime has the price of butter been so
> significantly different than that of margarine.
Sorry, speaking of my experiences as a child in the 50's in Holland. A lot
of the research went on there, in Britain and in the Midwest.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack Stein wrote:
> On 9/5/2011 8:36 PM, Eric wrote:
>> All that and you missed Mike's "environmnet".
>>
>> Better improve your netkopping. USanians have no grammar skills and
>> it's OK.
>
> USanian grammar skills are good enough.
>
What in the heck is this "USanians" stuff?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Jack Stein wrote:
>
> Every time you fart you effect the climate, just as a butterfly
> flapping it's wings...
>
> What are you going to do about your farting?
Continue flapping the bedcovers. Screw the environmnet...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Jack Stein wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 9:43 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2011 8:36 PM, Eric wrote:
>>>> All that and you missed Mike's "environmnet".
>>>>
>>>> Better improve your netkopping. USanians have no grammar skills and
>>>> it's OK.
>>>
>>> USanian grammar skills are good enough.
>>>
>>
>> What in the heck is this "USanians" stuff?
>
> My guess was it is Erics name for those living in the US?
>
> Wasn't that hard was it?
Ummmmmmm....
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sep 4, 10:53=A0am, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 8:06 AM, Han wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in
> >news:2baaed07-7de0-4532-913d-ea50bcac524e@p10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On Sep 3, 8:00 pm, Larry Blanchard<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> That's an interesting statement. =A0Can you provide a link to a peer=
-
> >>>>> reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? =A0If s=
o,
> >>>>> I
> >> 'd
> >>>>> like to read it.
>
> >>>> Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2".
> >>>> There is a ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why,
> >>>> even though it's true, it isn't. =A0;-)
>
> >>> First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). =A0You're absolutely
> >>> correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. =A0But finding=
a
> >>> site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to
> >>> grind one way or the other proved impossible.
>
> >>> The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations
> >>> in the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2.
> >>> =A0 The C
> >> O2
> >>> then intensifies the warming. =A0There's a name for that type of
> >>> feedback circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
>
> >>> But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
> >>> authoritative. =A0So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority o=
f
> >>> climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the
> >>> climate.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
> >> Typical. =A0The fact that temp leads CO2 is just a
> >> puzzling little inconvenient truth and can be ignored.
> >> I bet you believed all the govt scientific experts that
> >> told you that substituting tranfat loaded margarine
> >> for butter was necessary or you would die. =A0And that
> >> eating lots of carbs, ie bread and pasta =A0instead of meat
> >> would make you trim and healthy. =A0Remember who
> >> started that govt song and dance? =A0George McGovern.
> >> Only problem was that it was all wrong. =A0Now
> >> America has an obesity epidemic with record
> >> diabetes and heart disease. Now the govt is banning
> >> =A0 transfat and the stupid dietary pyramid laden with
> >> carbs is out too.
>
> > Scientists were decrying transfats long before, as they were decrying
> > some of the corn-derived unsaturated fats. =A0We need the really
> > polyunsaturated long and very long chain fatty acids. =A0There should b=
e
> > very many sources going back many, many years, but for reent stuff Goog=
le
> > CN Serhan and "resolution of inflammation" =A0Caveat: =A0Charlie is a
> > scientist who has attributed part of his education to me.
>
> > Margarine has "saved" many people who couldn't afford butter when that
> > was a luxury.
>
> > But the main point is this - there is a relationship between CO2 and
> > temperature. =A0If warming leads CO2 over geological time periods, we c=
ould
> > be talking about a feed-forward mechanism, where solar input raises
> > temps, which raises CO2, which then further raises temps. =A0Once start=
ed,
> > that vicious cycle might be difficult to stop. =A0But now we aren't dea=
ling
> > with geological time periods of thousands or hundreds of thousands of
> > years. =A0Greeenland might have been called green because for a relativ=
ely
> > short period, when temperatures were such that Greenland was indeed gre=
en
> > while Iceland was ice. =A0Who knows the intentions of those old Vikings
> > when they named things. =A0When temps became more like the average, the=
y
> > disappeared from Greenland (and Canada?). =A0Now we are dealing with sh=
ort
> > time periods again, and we don't know how to stop warming other than by
> > limiting CO2. =A0Some fancy ideas have come up though, and the laws of
> > unintended consequences really scare me - put up some SO2 clouds in the
> > stratosphere to reflect light back into space, for instance. =A0I'd rat=
her
> > have black asphalt be replaced by white concrete.
>
> Plain and simple, CO2 has always been around, will always be around and
> just because we have determined and or improved ways to find and measure
> that which has always existed does not mean that there is more of it
> around.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's clearly not an issue
of suddenly discovering a way to measure CO2 in the
atmosphere. For example, there are layers of ice
hundreds of feet thick, built up over hundreds of thousands
of year in the arctic. Those ice layers contain trapped
air bubbles. By drilling out ice cores, taking them to a
lab and measuring the air components, we know how
the CO2 concentration has varied over that time period.
>=A0A similar example, hurricanes. =A0We now very often almost reach
> the end of the alphabet naming the storms, 50 years ago you seldom heard
> named storms getting much past the first few letters of the alphabet.
> Does that mean that there are more storms, hell no!
> It means that we now have weather satellites =A0that find storms that we
> never would have seen before. =A0
This would suggest that is incorrect too:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp
From 2000 through 2009 there were 74 hurricanes.
From 1950 through 1959 there were 69 hurricanes
I agree that if you go back far enough, that less
would be noticed or catgorized, but you have to
go back a lot longer than 50 years.
>Plus it used to be that a storm was not
> named until it became an actual hurricane. =A0Now if a rain storm has
> winds similar to what you would find along =A0the coast on a windy day it
> gets named. =A0
Not true either. AFAIK, no ordinary rain storm
gets named. It must be a tropical storm, ie have a
large low pressure center and sustained winds
of at least 39MPH.
>You gotta justify all that invested money, finding more
> which we never saw before and lowering the qualification for naming a
> storm makes the technology and equipment easier to swallow. =A0Does it
> save property and or more lives, NO. =A0I probably caused more deaths fro=
m
> panic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess you'd prefer the days of old, when no one
knew a hurricane or tropical storm was about to
hit until it was too late to do anything.
On Sep 4, 9:06=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote innews:2baaed07-7de=
[email protected]:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 8:00 pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer-
> >> >>reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so,
> >> >>I
> > 'd
> >> >>like to read it.
>
> >> > Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2".
> >> > There is a ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why,
> >> > even though it's true, it isn't. ;-)
>
> >> First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). You're absolutely
> >> correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. But finding a
> >> site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to
> >> grind one way or the other proved impossible.
>
> >> The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations
> >> in the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2.
> >> The C
> > O2
> >> then intensifies the warming. There's a name for that type of
> >> feedback circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
>
> >> But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
> >> authoritative. So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of
> >> climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the
> >> climate.
>
> >> --
> >> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
> > Typical. =A0The fact that temp leads CO2 is just a
> > puzzling little inconvenient truth and can be ignored.
> > I bet you believed all the govt scientific experts that
> > told you that substituting tranfat loaded margarine
> > for butter was necessary or you would die. =A0And that
> > eating lots of carbs, ie bread and pasta =A0instead of meat
> > would make you trim and healthy. =A0Remember who
> > started that govt song and dance? =A0George McGovern.
> > Only problem was that it was all wrong. =A0Now
> > America has an obesity epidemic with record
> > diabetes and heart disease. Now the govt is banning
> > =A0transfat and the stupid dietary pyramid laden with
> > carbs is out too.
>
> Scientists were decrying transfats long before, as they were decrying
> some of the corn-derived unsaturated fats. =A0We need the really
> polyunsaturated long and very long chain fatty acids. =A0There should be
> very many sources going back many, many years, but for reent stuff Google
> CN Serhan and "resolution of inflammation" =A0Caveat: =A0Charlie is a
> scientist who has attributed part of his education to me.
Yeah, a FEW scientists were decrying transfats and
corn-derived fats long ago.. But most of them were in
agreement and supporting the govt recommendations that
they were both perfectly safe and healthy. And those
scientists that dared to question transfats were dismissed
as loons. Based on those mainstream scientists
findings, the govt told Americans to eat transfats and to
make bread, pasta and other refined carbs the core
of their diets.
Now, with an epidemic in obesity, diabetes and heart
disease, it turns out those mainstream scientists and
the govt were wrong. That is the relevant analogy.
>
> Margarine has "saved" many people who couldn't afford butter when that
> was a luxury.
What a joke. Since when was butter a necessity? I see
the UN delivering food to starving people and have yet to
see them dropping in trucks of butter or margarine. Nor
during my lifetime has the price of butter been so
significantly different than that of margarine.
And if you believe that price delta has saved people,
then what about the cost of eliminating CO2? That
already is costing lives as the diversion of agriculture
to bio-fuels has tripled the price of corn, soybeans,
wheat, etc.
>
> But the main point is this - there is a relationship between CO2 and
> temperature. =A0If warming leads CO2 over geological time periods, we cou=
ld
> be talking about a feed-forward mechanism, where solar input raises
> temps, which raises CO2, which then further raises temps. =A0Once started=
,
> that vicious cycle might be difficult to stop. =A0But now we aren't deali=
ng
> with geological time periods of thousands or hundreds of thousands of
> years.
Those past cycles started with temp rising, followed by
CO2 rising anywhere from a few hundred to 1500 years later.
I don't believe anyone knows with 100% certainty
exactly what caused those cycles to start.
So, how do we know that the current cycle isn't being
driven by exactly the same things?
>=A0Greeenland might have been called green because for a relatively
> short period, when temperatures were such that Greenland was indeed green
> while Iceland was ice. =A0Who knows the intentions of those old Vikings
> when they named things. =A0When temps became more like the average, they
> disappeared from Greenland (and Canada?). =A0Now we are dealing with shor=
t
> time periods again, and we don't know how to stop warming other than by
> limiting CO2. =A0
What did they do back in that short period to stop Greenland
from becoming green and get it reversed?
>Some fancy ideas have come up though, and the laws of
> unintended consequences really scare me - put up some SO2 clouds in the
> stratosphere to reflect light back into space, for instance. =A0I'd rathe=
r
> have black asphalt be replaced by white concrete.
>
I have no problem with taking some of the easy steps,
those that are either free or cost effective, to reduce CO2
emissions.
It's the notion of going hell bent, spending trillions of $$$
that no one has, making the USA more uncompetitive with
China, etc that scares me.
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer-
>>reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so, I'd
>>like to read it.
>
> Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2".
> There is a ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why, even
> though it's true, it isn't. ;-)
First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). You're absolutely
correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. But finding a
site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to grind
one way or the other proved impossible.
The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations in
the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2. The CO2
then intensifies the warming. There's a name for that type of feedback
circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
authoritative. So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of
climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the climate.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 9/3/2011 8:00 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
> authoritative. So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of
> climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the climate.
Every time you fart you effect the climate, just as a butterfly flapping
it's wings...
What are you going to do about your farting?
--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =====> Convenient Lies!
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 06:29:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> I don't believe anyone
> knows with 100% certainty exactly what caused those cycles to start.
I don't think anyone knows *anything* with 100% certainty. There's
always the philosophy that it's all an illusion :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 9/4/2011 9:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> I have no problem with taking some of the easy steps,
> those that are either free or cost effective, to reduce CO2
> emissions.
In a capitalist economy, cost effective steps are not needed, they come
naturally. Individuals tend to like "cost effective" Governments tend
to avoid it like the plague.
> It's the notion of going hell bent, spending trillions of $$$
> that no one has, making the USA more uncompetitive with
> China, etc that scares me.
If you hated the US, it wouldn't scare you at all:-)
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 4, 9:06 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:2baaed07-7de0-4532-913d-ea50bcac524e@p10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 3, 8:00 pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> > That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer-
>> >> >>reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so,
>> >> >>I
>> > 'd
>> >> >>like to read it.
>>
>> >> > Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2".
>> >> > There is a ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why,
>> >> > even though it's true, it isn't. ;-)
>>
>> >> First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). You're absolutely
>> >> correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. But finding a
>> >> site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to
>> >> grind one way or the other proved impossible.
>>
>> >> The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations
>> >> in the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2.
>> >> The C
>> > O2
>> >> then intensifies the warming. There's a name for that type of
>> >> feedback circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
>>
>> >> But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
>> >> authoritative. So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of
>> >> climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the
>> >> climate.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>>
>> > Typical. The fact that temp leads CO2 is just a
>> > puzzling little inconvenient truth and can be ignored.
>> > I bet you believed all the govt scientific experts that
>> > told you that substituting tranfat loaded margarine
>> > for butter was necessary or you would die. And that
>> > eating lots of carbs, ie bread and pasta instead of meat
>> > would make you trim and healthy. Remember who
>> > started that govt song and dance? George McGovern.
>> > Only problem was that it was all wrong. Now
>> > America has an obesity epidemic with record
>> > diabetes and heart disease. Now the govt is banning
>> > transfat and the stupid dietary pyramid laden with
>> > carbs is out too.
>>
>> Scientists were decrying transfats long before, as they were decrying
>> some of the corn-derived unsaturated fats. We need the really
>> polyunsaturated long and very long chain fatty acids. There should be
>> very many sources going back many, many years, but for reent stuff Google
>> CN Serhan and "resolution of inflammation" Caveat: Charlie is a
>> scientist who has attributed part of his education to me.
>
> Yeah, a FEW scientists were decrying transfats and
> corn-derived fats long ago.. But most of them were in
> agreement and supporting the govt recommendations that
> they were both perfectly safe and healthy. And those
> scientists that dared to question transfats were dismissed
> as loons. Based on those mainstream scientists
> findings, the govt told Americans to eat transfats and to
> make bread, pasta and other refined carbs the core
> of their diets.
>
> Now, with an epidemic in obesity, diabetes and heart
> disease, it turns out those mainstream scientists and
> the govt were wrong. That is the relevant analogy.
>
>
>>
>> Margarine has "saved" many people who couldn't afford butter when that
>> was a luxury.
>
> What a joke. Since when was butter a necessity? I see
> the UN delivering food to starving people and have yet to
> see them dropping in trucks of butter or margarine. Nor
> during my lifetime has the price of butter been so
> significantly different than that of margarine.
>
> And if you believe that price delta has saved people,
> then what about the cost of eliminating CO2? That
> already is costing lives as the diversion of agriculture
> to bio-fuels has tripled the price of corn, soybeans,
> wheat, etc.
>
>
>
>>
>> But the main point is this - there is a relationship between CO2 and
>> temperature. If warming leads CO2 over geological time periods, we could
>> be talking about a feed-forward mechanism, where solar input raises
>> temps, which raises CO2, which then further raises temps. Once started,
>> that vicious cycle might be difficult to stop. But now we aren't dealing
>> with geological time periods of thousands or hundreds of thousands of
>> years.
>
> Those past cycles started with temp rising, followed by
> CO2 rising anywhere from a few hundred to 1500 years later.
> I don't believe anyone knows with 100% certainty
> exactly what caused those cycles to start.
> So, how do we know that the current cycle isn't being
> driven by exactly the same things?
>
>
>
>>Greeenland might have been called green because for a relatively
>> short period, when temperatures were such that Greenland was indeed green
>> while Iceland was ice. Who knows the intentions of those old Vikings
>> when they named things. When temps became more like the average, they
>> disappeared from Greenland (and Canada?). Now we are dealing with short
>> time periods again, and we don't know how to stop warming other than by
>> limiting CO2.
>
> What did they do back in that short period to stop Greenland
> from becoming green and get it reversed?
>
>
>
>>Some fancy ideas have come up though, and the laws of
>> unintended consequences really scare me - put up some SO2 clouds in the
>> stratosphere to reflect light back into space, for instance. I'd rather
>> have black asphalt be replaced by white concrete.
>>
>
> I have no problem with taking some of the easy steps,
> those that are either free or cost effective, to reduce CO2
> emissions.
> It's the notion of going hell bent, spending trillions of $$$
> that no one has, making the USA more uncompetitive with
> China, etc that scares me.
1. New Evidence Debunks Manmade Global Warming
New research from one of the worldâs most prestigious scientific
organizations indicates that cosmic rays and the sun â not manmade carbon
emissions â are the major factors influencing global climate.
âThe science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new
evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate
Change) and other global warming doomsayers wonât be celebrating,â writes
Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, in Canadaâs Financial
Post.
âThe new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun â not human activities â
as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.â
The findings, published in the journal Nature, come from CERN, the European
Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the worldâs largest centers for
scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than
600 universities and national laboratories, according to Solomon.
CERN â the organization that invented the World Wide Web â built a stainless
steel chamber that precisely re-created the Earthâs atmosphere.
âIn this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American
institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done
â demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in
Earthâs atmosphere can grow and seed clouds.â And the cloudier it is, the
cooler it will be, Solomon notes.
âBecause the sunâs magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach
Earthâs atmosphere (the stronger the sunâs magnetic field, the more it
shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the
temperature on Earth.â
So when the sunâs magnetic field is strongest, fewer cosmic rays impact the
Earth, which in turn leads to decreased cloud formation and warmer
temperatures.
The link between cosmic rays and global warming was first proposed by two
Danish scientists in 1996, and was immediately denounced by the IPCC.
But CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby, a British experimental physicist, accepted
the Danesâ theory. He told the scientific press in 1998 that it âwill
probably be able to account for somewhere between half and the whole of the
increase in the Earthâs temperature that we have seen in the last century.â
It took Kirkby nearly 10 years to convince the CERN bureaucracy to proceed
with his plan to create the chamber that replicates the Earthâs atmosphere
and has produced the recent results.
But CERN âremains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit
its success,â observes Solomon, author of âThe Deniers: The World-Renowned
Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political
Persecution, and Fraud.â
CERN told Kirkby and his team to downplay the results by stating âthat
cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.â
Solomon concludes: âCERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the
path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate
science wonât yet permit a celebration of the find.â
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Man. 2010.1 Spring
KDE4.4
2.6.33.5-desktop-2mnb
All that and you missed Mike's "environmnet".
Better improve your netkopping. USanians have no grammar skills and it's
OK.
Va te faire foutre.
-------------------
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
news:9a1d04e1-85fe-41de-b0c4-fdc327fcdff4@g19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 5:11 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
> > Every time you fart you effect
AFFECT
the climate, just as a butterfly
> > flapping it's
ITS wings...
>
> > What are you going to do about your farting?
>
> Continue flapping the bedcovers. Screw the environmnet...
Apres moi, le deluge.
HB
On 9/5/2011 8:36 PM, Eric wrote:
> All that and you missed Mike's "environmnet".
>
> Better improve your netkopping. USanians have no grammar skills and it's
> OK.
USanian grammar skills are good enough.
http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipsep99a.htm
Wringing one's hands over this crap is generally a sign you are either
unemployed or working for the government. IE, unproductive.
--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com
> Va te faire foutre.
>
> -------------------
> "Higgs Boson" wrote in message
> news:9a1d04e1-85fe-41de-b0c4-fdc327fcdff4@g19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sep 5, 5:11 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>> > Every time you fart you effect
>
> AFFECT
>
> the climate, just as a butterfly
>> > flapping it's
>
> ITS wings...
>>
>> > What are you going to do about your farting?
>>
>> Continue flapping the bedcovers. Screw the environmnet...
>
> Apres moi, le deluge.
>
> HB
On 9/6/2011 9:43 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> On 9/5/2011 8:36 PM, Eric wrote:
>>> All that and you missed Mike's "environmnet".
>>>
>>> Better improve your netkopping. USanians have no grammar skills and
>>> it's OK.
>>
>> USanian grammar skills are good enough.
>>
>
> What in the heck is this "USanians" stuff?
My guess was it is Erics name for those living in the US?
Wasn't that hard was it?
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com